ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Climate Change

Holly Lynch: What progress her Department has made on its work on the effects of climate change in developing countries.

Justine Greening: We are doing climate-smart development. Through the international climate fund, the UK has helped over 15 million people cope with the effects of climate change and given 2.6 million people access to clean energy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently announced that over the next five years the UK’s climate funding will increase by at least 50%.

Holly Lynch: In 2015 we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make progress on both international development and climate change. In countries such as Bangladesh and in regions of Africa, the connection between climate change and child marriage is stark. Desperate families faced with failing crops, flooding and extreme weather impacting on their livelihoods and homes are deciding to see their daughters married earlier and earlier, in the hope that they will at least have a roof over their heads and food to eat. Too often that gamble is leaving girls at risk—

Mr Speaker: Order. We need a question.

Holly Lynch: I hope that we will look to resolve climate change in order to deal with international development.

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady is right to point out that climate change has a number of different impacts that go well beyond the environment. She will know that last year we held the Girl summit, because it is all about increasing momentum to tackle child marriage worldwide. The UK now has a flagship programme in place to do just that.

Caroline Nokes: Some 660 million Africans currently have no access to power. Will my right hon. Friend explain what she is doing to ensure that global goal 7 is met, while at the same time being careful and cautious about climate change?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that last week the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), announced a brand-new programme that the UK will be heading called Energy Africa, which is supported by Kofi Annan. It will mean that we can get energy to the people who are least likely to be able to afford it, but— this is critical—we are doing that in a renewable way, which we think will have a huge impact in the coming years.

Angus MacNeil: Is the right hon. Lady in any way concerned about the signals that the Department of Energy and Climate Chance might be sending out through its lack of support for renewable energy and the change in that regime, and what lessons other countries might draw from that?

Justine Greening: There are two aspects to tackling climate change. The first, of course, is mitigation, and many developed countries such as the UK have significant plans in place to transition to low carbon economies. The second is adaptation, which is the challenge for many developing countries. It is about how they can ensure that they not only adapt to climate change, which often hits them first, but grow sustainably and develop nevertheless.

Jeremy Lefroy: I congratulate the Department on the excellent work it has done with the Nepali Government over many years on the community forestry programme, which has seen forestation increase in Nepal. Are there lessons to learn from that programme for other areas in which the Department operates?

Justine Greening: Yes, I think that the key is to work with the grain of human nature and put in place programmes that allow livelihoods to be more successful and profitable, and that can go hand in hand with protecting and preserving the environment. The programme to which my hon. Friend refers is one of a number that the Department has put in place to ensure that reforestation happens.

Refugee Camps: Winter

John Nicolson: What steps her Department is taking to support preparation for winter in refugee camps in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

Desmond Swayne: We are supporting 11 partners with £221 million to respond to the onset of winter. Vulnerable refugees will receive warm clothes, thermal blankets, fuel and cash.

John Nicolson: The Minister will be aware that in Lebanon around 190,000 refugee families do not live in formal camps, because those who cannot afford to rent accommodation are often forced to live in informal tented settlements in rural areas, such as the Bekaa valley, or in unfurnished buildings in urban areas. What steps is the Department taking to support those who live outside the refugee camps?

Desmond Swayne: As the hon. Gentleman observes, there are no refugee camps in Lebanon—I have visited the settlements in the Bekaa valley—and it is precisely for that reason that we support UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to make the provisions that we are paying for.

Caroline Spelman: Are persecuted Christians and other religious minorities able to get into the camps, and will they be able to remain within them and take winter refuge?

Desmond Swayne: I have visited camps that are specifically for Christians, but I would be reluctant to make any kind of aid provision specific to a religious confession, because that would be to pour combustible material on a conflagration that is already in progress.

Mr Speaker: Very pithy—we are grateful.

Alex Cunningham: Refugee children in Europe also face a tough winter. Last week the UNHCR expressed concern that unaccompanied children moving within Europe are at a heightened risk of violence and abuse, especially in overcrowded reception centres, while Save the Children operations in Italy and Greece have identified that these children are suffering a high level of psychological distress. Does the Minister agree that just because these children have arrived in Europe, it does not mean they are safe? Will he have a word in the Prime Minister’s ear to remind him that I wrote to him on 11 September and am still awaiting an answer?

Desmond Swayne: I do not think the Prime Minister will be needing any reminder about the nature of the crisis. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is precisely for those reasons that we provide core funding to the UNHCR and UNICEF.

Mark Pritchard: The United Kingdom is rightly, in my view, taking 20,000 refugees. There are eight categories of profiles of resettlement under the UNHCR guidelines. Will the Government be using those guidelines or will we introduce our own guidelines given that those eight categories do not include widows and orphans?

Desmond Swayne: We will be using the UNHCR guidelines.

Patrick Grady: I welcome the new Labour Front-Bench team and look forward to working with them on these important matters.
	Does not the onset of winter and the challenges it brings highlight the importance of the UK playing a diplomatic role in resolving the crisis in Syria? Does the Minister agree that as winter sets in and families start to freeze, this is a situation where the Government should be prioritising bairns, not bombs?

Desmond Swayne: I agree entirely that we must bend every muscle to provide a settlement.

Alex Chalk: In supporting preparations for winter in refugee camps, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is taking the lead in Europe in providing more resources than any of our European allies?

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is the greatest humanitarian response that we have made to any emergency ever.

Diane Abbott: There are terrible reports of the conditions in the Syrian refugee camps on Greek islands such as Lesbos, with no dry clothes, no shelter, no food, and children sleeping in bin bags, and conditions can only get worse as winter approaches. Are the Government really prepared to turn their back on people like these?

Desmond Swayne: We have already done work, and are doing work, with the UNHCR and the Red Cross.

Migration

Chris Davies: How much of her Department’s budget is directed at tackling the root causes of migration.

Justine Greening: I, too, take this opportunity to welcome the shadow Front-Bench team to their roles. I look forward not only to debating but, I hope, to constructively working with them in common cause on this agenda.
	The root causes of migration are diverse. They include conflict and lack of security, but also a lack of opportunity and jobs. That is why we provide help and security for refugees affected by the Syria crisis. Doubling our work on jobs and growth, as we are, is not only good for people in the countries we are supporting but in our national interest.

Chris Davies: The focus in recent weeks has been on migrants from the Syrian conflict, but what is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to tackle migration from Africa?

Justine Greening: Two things. In short, we are working to create jobs, and we have doubled our economic development work across the Department, but we are also helping African countries to cope with the refugees and displaced people that they themselves have—for example, in Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya.

Ann Clwyd: Will the Minister confirm that migrants from Eritrea are no longer going to be described as economic migrants, since some of the worst human rights atrocities are taking place in that country?

Justine Greening: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the human rights concerns that we have in relation to Eritrea. On her more specific question, let me write to her with an update.

Mr Speaker: I call Mims Davies. [Interruption.] It is not compulsory, but we are happy to hear the hon. Lady if she wishes.

Mims Davies: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many women and girls come to our shores to escape evil and barbaric oppression abroad. Will the Minister update me on what the Department is doing through our aid programme to fight the practice of female genital mutilation around the world?

Justine Greening: The UK has a flagship programme—the largest of its kind in the world—which is supporting the African-led movement to end FGM in 17 of the most affected countries. Our Girl summit last year galvanised a global movement on ending FGM and child marriage, and next month the African Union will host the African Girl’s summit to maintain momentum, which I hope to join.

Greg Mulholland: This is a disappointing Whips’ question. The root cause of migration by Brits to Spain is the fact that they prefer the weather. Will the Secretary of State have a word with the Conservative Whip’s Office, and colleagues, to stop them conflating the refugee crisis with economic migration?

Justine Greening: I was not expecting a question on UK pensioners and migration, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point. DFID’s focus is to help people who have been caught up in crises such as that in Syria, through no fault of their own, and to ensure that they get support, shelter, medical treatment, and that their children receive the education they deserve.

Refugees (Registration of Children)

Stuart McDonald: What steps her Department is taking to support the legal registration of children born to refugees in Lebanon and Jordan.

Desmond Swayne: Registration is essential to enable refugees to obtain humanitarian services and protection under international law. To date we have provided the UNHCR with £44 million in Jordan and Lebanon, which includes support for registration and issuing birth certificates.

Stuart McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. As he said, registration can be vital to prevent statelessness, yet some estimates suggest that nearly 30,000 Syrian refugee children born in Lebanon could fall into that category, with long-term consequences for their education and a vulnerability to violence and exploitation; it could even affect their ability to return home should the conflict come to an end. Does the Minister recognise that that situation requires a response from the Governments of the host countries and grass-roots legal advice organisations on the ground, and will he commit to working at all levels to support access to registration—

Mr Speaker: Order. May I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the deployment of a blue pencil is helpful on these occasions?

Desmond Swayne: I cannot confirm the figures. If people are not registered they are difficult to count, but the hon. Gentleman is right, and it is essential that we continue to work with the UNHCR and the Norwegian Refugee Council, which has particular expertise in securing rights for refugees, and that we continue to lobby the host Government.

Gregory Campbell: Given the complexity of the situation that the Minister has mentioned, how meticulous and precise are the processes to ensure that those children who are most at risk are prioritised when trying to deliver a more acceptable outcome?

Desmond Swayne: I have visited registration centres in Lebanon, and I assure the hon. Gentleman about the extraordinary efforts that are being made by a remarkable staff. Undoubtedly, the situation has become challenging since May, although it has improved recently. We are on the case.

Mike Kane: I thank the Minister for his answer about the £44 million, but what action will the Government take on the specific issue of the complexity and cost of registering stateless children? We do not want anyone to be left behind. Will he come back to the House with a more specific answer to the question?

Desmond Swayne: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. It is important to put our money where our mouth is, and £44 million to the UNHCR is an important part of the answer. It is vital to work with the UNHCR and the Norwegian Refugee Council, and to lobby the host Government. Unfortunately I do not rule Lebanon.

Occupied Palestinian Territories

Tommy Sheppard: What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Desmond Swayne: Some 2.3 million people in Gaza and the west bank have insecure access to food, and 1.4 million are in need of water, sanitation and hygiene. This month 58 Palestinians and eight Israelis have been killed, and 7,042 Palestinians and 70 Israelis have been injured.

Tommy Sheppard: I have a related question on Gaza, if I may. What assessment has been made of the destruction of UK-funded facilities in Gaza by the bombing of the Israeli air force? It seems that we provide facilities, either directly or through the UN, but then those facilities get bombed and we have to provide them again. What can be done to stop that tragic merry-go-round, and will the Minister work with colleagues to try to persuade the Israeli Government to have a more proportionate response in Gaza and to stop hindering the relief effort?

Mr Speaker: I am sorry but these questions are too long. We are very short of time—we need pithy inquiries.

Desmond Swayne: Twelve UK-funded United Nations Relief and Works Agency schools were substantially damaged in the hostilities. The only way that can be prevented is by a peace process.

Mr Speaker: A tutorial can be provided by Mr Howell.

John Howell: Will my right hon. Friend praise the doctors at the Hadassah medical centre in Jerusalem, who are showing real humanitarian characteristics by treating victims and attackers at the same time?

Desmond Swayne: That is an object lesson on the measure of leadership now required to overcome the huge amount of distrust and hatred.

Debbie Abrahams: What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Israeli Government on the increase in illegal building on the west bank and the impact that that has had on current levels of violence?

Desmond Swayne: I have had substantial discussions with the Israeli Government on this issue and could not have been more robust in my representations.

Bob Blackman: What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the provision of a desalination plant for Gaza, as proposed by the Israeli Government, which would supply all the water needs for Gaza and satisfy the humanitarian grounds we want to see?

Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important issue. UN studies predict that Gaza will become uninhabitable, as a consequence of the water problem, by 2020. A peace process is vital, so that the level of investment required to drive such developments becomes available.

Foreign National Offenders

Philip Hollobone: In which countries her Department is working with the Ministry of Justice to build prisons to facilitate the return of foreign national offenders from the UK.

Grant Shapps: This summer, in my capacity as a joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, I visited Tower Street prison, Jamaica, where we have negotiated a prison build and transfer arrangement to return foreign national offenders, as reported by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Philip Hollobone: Given that we spend £300 million a year on incarcerating foreign national offenders in this country, it makes sense to use the DFID budget to build prisons in other countries so that they can be returned. Would the Minister be kind enough to consider Pakistan, Bangladesh and Vietnam for future projects?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we work in various countries, through the returns and reintegration fund. I mentioned Jamaica. There are also examples in Ghana, which I will shortly visit, and Nigeria, where I have just been.

Diane Abbott: Where does building prisons fit into the UK’s stated spending priorities for foreign aid? Does the Minister understand concerns about aid money perhaps increasingly being siphoned off for other purposes?

Grant Shapps: As the hon. Lady knows, we have a strict regime for where money is spent and how it fits into official development assistance expenditure. In the end, this is about security both in those countries and at home.

Topical Questions

Chris Davies: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: Last month, I was at the UN for its historic adoption of the 17 global goals. The UK played a key role in creating goals that are universal, inclusive and have a commitment to leave no one behind. At the World Bank annual meetings and with EU Ministers, the UK pressed for more support for Syrian refugees. Finally, at a Rotary event in Parliament last week, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), we recognised that for the first time there have been no polio cases in Africa for over a year, and just 51 cases of polio globally this year to date. That is incredible progress and we will finish off that job.

Chris Davies: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her Department recently winning a procurement award, beating several leading British private sector companies for the third year running. What more can she do to provide value for money in her Department?

Justine Greening: I have been very keen to deliver value for money for the taxpayer. In fact, smarter procurement has saved DFID more than £400 million over the past four years alone. We are now looking at how we can make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to work with DFID and at how we can get better value for money from our work with non-governmental organisations and UN agencies.

Paul Blomfield: As a result of the ongoing conflict in Yemen, 21 million people now are in desperate need of aid. What is the Secretary of State doing to secure action by the UN Security Council to ensure the constructive engagement in peace talks by all parties to the conflict, to end the de facto blockade and to provide humanitarian access?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this forgotten crisis. At the UN in September, I held a discussion with a range of stakeholders, including UN agencies, about how we can do a better job of reaching people in need, but that fundamentally requires a dialogue on how to achieve peace.

Henry Bellingham: Given that the Government of Somalia have now taken control of several towns and areas previously occupied by al-Shabaab, does the Secretary of State agree that it is crucial that effective local government services be put in place to win the support of local communities? What further support will DFID provide to support communities in this troubled area?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right that, as we hopefully achieve growing political stability in Somalia, we back that up by allowing a more federal approach to government. Indeed, DFID is pulling together programmes that will enable us to support local government to provide the basic services people depend on.

Richard Burden: Speaking about the situation in Palestine at the World Zionist Congress last week, the Israeli Prime Minister declared that Israel would have
	“to control all of the territory for the foreseeable future.”
	If Israel has no intention of allowing the creation of two states and prevents Palestinians from having equal rights in one state, what is left but apartheid, and what implications does that have for UK development policy?

Desmond Swayne: It is vital that we get the peace process back on track, and I hope that the agreement at the weekend over Temple Mount and al-Aqsa will at least be the start of that process. However, the only way to address the issue the hon. Gentleman raises is to pursue a two-state solution.

Graham Evans: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what work her Department is doing to help failing and fragile states?

Justine Greening: We have chosen to focus more work on helping fragile and failing states, tackling instability and helping people affected by conflict. It is not just the right thing to do for those people and their countries; it is also a way of keeping our own country safe, secure and prosperous.

Tommy Sheppard: On 15 October, Human Rights Watch published a report on the deteriorating situation in Nepal. It documents more than 45 deaths in recent months and in particular criticises the Nepali police. Given that the Department is funding the Nepali police, will Ministers read the report and give a considered response to its findings?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. Our work alongside the Nepali police has been important in providing the conditions for us to ensure that humanitarian support can get to people affected by the earthquake, but he is right to raise concerns, and we will of course respond to them.

Caroline Nokes: Hampshire fire and rescue played a critical role in the immediate recovery efforts after the earthquake in Nepal. What steps have now been taken to ensure economic recovery in that country?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right that beyond providing initial emergency humanitarian aid, we now need to consider how we can help Nepal recover, and that includes investment in infrastructure, in particular, but also broader investment in energy and access to it and improving the business environment so that we can get investment into the country.

Louise Haigh: Following the recent outbreak of violence in India-controlled Kashmir, can the Secretary of State reassure the House on what steps her Department is taking to protect freedom of religion and belief?

Justine Greening: Much of our work is aimed at engendering stability in countries, but in the end, many of the issues that hon. Members raise need to be dealt with at a political level and require long-term political leadership to ensure that communities can live side by side. When that is in place, we have the best prospect for development.

Lucy Allan: The global humanitarian system is struggling to cope under the pressure of many crises in the world. What is Britain doing to reform the system so that it is fit for purpose for the years to come?

Justine Greening: First, we are encouraging UN agencies to improve on value for money. Secondly, we are looking ahead to the world humanitarian summit in Istanbul next May, making sure that the international community and UN agencies have a better response to protracted crises, such as the one in Syria, where children are left with no education and people are left with no jobs. Those are the root causes of why migration is now taking place from that region.

Stuart Donaldson: It has been more than a month since the sustainable development goals were agreed at the UN. When will the UK Government publish their plans for the implementation of the goals? What role will DFID play in co-ordination across Whitehall and the devolved Administrations?

Justine Greening: First, we can be proud of the work the UK did in shaping those goals—it was very much led by the Prime Minister and his participation in the high level panel, which was set up by the UN Secretary-General. The UK meets many of the goals, but we, too, wanted those goals to be universal. We will now work on them domestically.

Jake Berry: I congratulate the Secretary of State on her fantastic work on tackling female genital mutilation. Will she update the House on what further steps she will take to tackle the equally abhorrent practice of breast ironing?

Justine Greening: I put improving the prospects for women and girls at the heart of everything that DFID does. It is vital that women have voice, choice and control in their lives. That is at the centre of DFID’s development programmes and what we do in our humanitarian support, and it will continue to be so.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: I welcome DFID’s recent announcement of increased support to the urgently needed humanitarian relief operations in Yemen. Will the Secretary of State comment on the effectiveness of this aid, given that the UK Government are simultaneously supporting the coalition that is currently carrying out indiscriminate bombings in civilian areas, including on a Médecins sans Frontières-run facility on Monday night?

Justine Greening: The long-term solution to helping people in Yemen will be a political process that delivers peace. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the dire humanitarian situation, which leaves 80% of people in Yemen in need. I assure her that we are working on not only improving access for aid getting into the country, but on ensuring that when it does get there it can get around the country to communities in need—that is particularly the case for fuel, which is desperately needed.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stephen Metcalfe: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 October.

David Cameron: Before I answer my hon. Friend, I know that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Michael Meacher. He died suddenly last week, and we send our condolences to his family and friends. Michael dedicated his life to public service, diligently representing his Oldham constituents in this place for a staggering 45 years. He was a passionate advocate of the causes he believed in, which included the environment, and he was able to put these into practice as a Minister between 1997 and 2003. This House and our politics are a poorer place without him, and I know that colleagues from all parts of this Chamber will remember him with affection and will miss him greatly.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meeting later today.

Stephen Metcalfe: May I associate myself with the sympathies expressed by the Prime Minister?
	Will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the fact that one in 10 of the world’s tractors are built in Basildon, that not an Airbus A380 flies without a part built in Basildon and that Thurrock is not only home to the largest inward investment in the south-east, but is attracting investment from world-renowned organisations such as the Royal Opera House? All that is leading to job creation and opportunity, so will he do all he can to ensure that Britain remains a great place to do business and prosper in?

David Cameron: Basildon has a special place in my heart—I did not know all those statistics, so it now has an even more special place. I can tell my hon. Friend that the long-term youth claimant count in his constituency is down by 42% in the past year. He spoke about what a good place Britain is to do business in, and I am pleased to say that we are now sixth in the world rankings for the best place to set up and to run a business. I know that the Leader of the Opposition, not least because his new spokesman is, apparently, a great admirer of the Soviet Union. will be very pleased to start the day with tractor statistics.

Jeremy Corbyn: I start by associating myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about Michael Meacher. On behalf of the Labour party, his constituents and a much wider community, I express our condolences to his family. I spoke to them last night and asked them how they would like Michael to be remembered. They thought about it and sent me a very nice message, which I would like to read out, if I may, Mr Speaker. It is quite brief, but very poignant. As “Memories of Michael”, they provided this statement:
	“When I was young…one of the things he frequently said to me was that people went into politics because they had principles and wanted to change things to make the world better, but that in order to get into power they would often compromise on their principles and that this could happen again and again until, if they eventually did get into power, they would have become so compromised that they would do nothing with it.”
	Those of us who knew Michael knew him as a decent, hard-working, passionate and profound man. He represented his constituency with diligence and distinction for 45 years. He was a brilliant Environment Minister, as the Prime Minister pointed out, and he was totally committed to parliamentary democracy and to this Parliament holding Governments—all Governments—to account. He was also a lifelong campaigner against injustice and poverty. We remember Michael for all of those things. We express our condolences and we express our sympathies to his family at this very difficult time. His will be a hard act to follow, but we will do our best.
	Following the events in the other place on Monday evening and the rather belated acceptance by the Prime Minister of the result there, can he now guarantee to the House and to the wider country that nobody will be worse off next year as a result of cuts to working tax credits?

David Cameron: What I can guarantee is that we remain committed to the vision of a high pay, low tax, lower welfare economy. We believe that the way to make sure that everyone is better off is to keep growing our economy, keep inflation low, keep cutting people’s taxes and introduce the national living wage. As for our changes, the Chancellor will set them out in the autumn statement.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for that, but the question I asked was quite simply this: will he confirm, right now, that tax credit cuts will not make anyone worse off in April next year?

David Cameron: What we want is for people to be better off because we are cutting their taxes and increasing their pay, but the hon. Gentleman is going to have to be a little patient, because although these changes passed the House of Commons five times with ever-enlarging majorities, we will set out our new proposals in the autumn statement and he will be able to study them.

Jeremy Corbyn: This is the time when we ask questions to the Prime Minister on behalf of the people of this country—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, if I may continue. People are very worried about what is going to happen to them next April, so what exactly does the Prime Minister mean? He is considering it and there is an autumn statement coming up, but we thought he was committed to not cutting tax credits. Is he going to cut them or not? Are people going to be worse off or not in April next year? He must know the answer.

David Cameron: I want to make two points. First, we set out in our election manifesto that we were going to find £12 billion-worth of savings on welfare. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. We need a bit of calm. The questions and the answers must be heard.

David Cameron: It is an important point because every penny we do not save on welfare means savings we have to find in the education budget, the policing budget or the health budget. My second point is that because of what has happened in the other place, we should of course have a debate about how to reform welfare and how to reduce its cost. I am happy to have that debate, but it is difficult to have it with the hon. Gentleman because he has opposed every single welfare change that has been made. He does not support the welfare cap; he does not support the cap on housing benefit; he does not think that any change to welfare is worth while. I have to say that if we want a strong economy, if we want growth and if we want to get rid of our deficit and secure our country, we need to reform welfare.

Jeremy Corbyn: What we are talking about are tax credits for people in work. The Prime Minister knows that; he understands that. He has lost the support of many people in this country who are actually quite sympathetic to his political project, and some of the newspapers that support him have now come out against him on this. He did commit himself to cuts of £12 billion in the welfare budget, but repeatedly refused to say whether tax credits would be part of that. In fact, he said that they would not be. Will he now give us the answer that we are trying to get today?

David Cameron: The answer will be in the autumn statement, when we set out our proposals, but I must say to the hon. Gentleman that it has come to quite a strange set of events when the House of Commons votes for something five times, when there is absolutely no rebellion among Conservative Members of Parliament or, indeed, among Conservative peers, and when the Labour party is left defending and depending on unelected peers in the House of Lords. We have a new alliance in British politics: the unelected and the unelectable.

Jeremy Corbyn: It is very interesting that the Prime Minister still refuses to answer the fundamental question. This is not a constitutional crisis; it is a crisis for 3 million families in this country who are very worried about what is going to happen next April.
	Just before the last election, when asked on the BBC’s “World at One” whether he was going to cut tax credits, the former Chief Whip, now the Justice Secretary, said:
	“we are not going to cut them.”
	Why did he say that?

David Cameron: What I said at the election was that the basic level of child tax credits would stay the same, and, at £2,780 per child, it has stayed exactly the same. However, the point is this: if we want to get our deficit down, if we want to secure our economy, if we want to keep on with secure growth, we need to make savings in welfare. Presumably, even with his deficit-denying, borrow-for-ever plan, the hon. Gentleman has to make some savings in public spending. If you do not save any money on welfare, you end up cutting the NHS, and you end up cutting police budgets even more deeply. Those are the truths. When is the hon. Gentleman going to stop his deficit denial, get off the fence, and tell us what he would do?

Jeremy Corbyn: Mr Speaker, I have—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I said a moment ago that the answers needed to be heard; the questions need to be heard as well. The hon. Gentleman is going to ask his question, and it will be heard. If it takes longer, so be it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I have asked the Prime Minister five times whether or not people will be worse off next April if they receive working tax credits. He has still not been able to answer me, or, indeed, many others. May I put to him a question that I was sent by—[Interruption.] It may seem very amusing to Conservative Members.
	I was sent this question by Karen. She wrote:
	“Why is the Prime Minister punishing working families—I work full time and earn the ‘living wage’ within the public sector. The tax credit cuts will push me and my family into hardship.”
	Can the Prime Minister give a cast-iron guarantee to Karen, and all the other families who are very worried about what will happen to their incomes next April? They are worried about how they will be able to make ends meet? He could give them the answer today, and I hope that he will. I ask him for the sixth time: please give us an answer to a very straightforward, very simple question.

David Cameron: What I would say to Karen is this: if she is on the living wage working in the public sector, next year, in April, she will benefit from being able to earn £11,000 before she pays any income tax at all—it was around £6,000 when I became Prime Minister. If she has children, she will benefit from 30 hours of childcare every week. That is something that has happened under this Government. But above all she will benefit because we have a growing economy, we have zero inflation, we have got 2 million more people in work, and we will train 3 million apprentices in this Parliament. That is the fact. The reason the Labour party lost the last election is that it was completely untrusted on the deficit, on debt and on a stable economy. Since then the deficit deniers have taken over the Labour party. That is what happened. When we look at their plans—borrowing forever, printing money, hiking up taxes—we see that it is working people like Karen who would pay the price.

David Morris: In my constituency, unemployment has fallen by 30% since 2010. This Government have delivered the M6 link road—after 60 years—which will create even more jobs in my area when it is completed. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that the Conservatives are ensuring that Morecambe is back open for business?

David Cameron: I well remember visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency and looking at the very important road works that are going to open up the port, and that are going to help when we bring in the new nuclear power station and all the other steps he wants to see. The long-term youth claimant count in his constituency has fallen by 30% in the last year, so those young people are now able to work, and able to benefit from our growing economy.

Angus Robertson: Scottish National party Members associate ourselves with the condolences expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition about Michael Meacher.
	Last week I asked the Prime Minister about the tragic circumstances of Michael O’Sullivan, a disabled man from north London who took his own life after an assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions. We know that at least 60 investigations have taken place into suicides following the cancellation of benefits, but their findings have not been published. The Prime Minister said to me last week that he would look carefully at the specific question about publication. Will he confirm when those findings will be published?

David Cameron: I will write to the right hon. Gentleman about this, but from memory we cannot publish the report because it contains personal and medical data that would not be appropriate for publication. If I have got that wrong, I will write to him, but that is my clear memory of looking into his question after last week.

Angus Robertson: Tim Salter from Stourbridge in the west midlands was 53 when he took his life. The coroner ruled:
	“A major factor in his death was that his state benefits had been greatly reduced leaving him almost destitute.”
	Tim’s sister said:
	“It’s the vulnerable people who are going to be affected the worst. The DWP need to publish these reviews.”
	The Prime Minister says that he is confused about the views of the families involved. The families say the findings should be published. Will he publish them? Three million families are going to have their child tax credits cancelled. We need the answers to these questions.

David Cameron: First, let me correct the right hon. Gentleman on that last point. Under the proposals we put forward, those on the lowest levels of pay were protected because of the national living wage, and those on the lowest incomes were protected because we were protecting the basic award of the child tax credit at £2,780. I have already answered the other part of the question: I will send him a letter if I have got this wrong, but my understanding is that there were too many personal and medical details for the report to be published. That is an important consideration in deciding whether to publish something.

Mark Pawsey: I would like to ask the Prime Minister about Ruby, one of my youngest constituents. She is just one month old. Why should Ruby face the prospect of spending her entire working life paying off the debt built up by this generation?

David Cameron: I think it is absolutely right to care about Ruby. When we became the Government £1 in every £4 spent by the Government was borrowed money. We had one of the biggest budget deficits anywhere in the world. It is always easy for people to say, “Put off the difficult decisions; don’t make any spending reductions,” but what they are doing is burdening future generations with debt. What I would say to the Labour Front Bench is that that is not generosity; that is actually selfishness.

Mr Speaker: I call Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

Carolyn Harris: Thank you, Mr Speaker—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) must have misheard me. An innocent error, but I called Mrs Sharon Hodgson.

Sharon Hodgson: We all know about the Prime Minister’s broken promise on tax credits, but would not the final nail in the coffin of compassionate conservatism be hammered home if he were to scrap universal infant free school meals in the spending review, taking hot healthy meals out of the mouths of innocent, blameless infant children? Will he now guarantee not to scrap universal infant free school meals, so that he does not go down in history as Dave the Dinner Snatcher?

David Cameron: I am immensely proud that it was a Government I led that introduced that policy. In 13 years of a Labour Government, did they ever do that? [Hon. Members: “No!”] Do we remember an infant free school meals Bill from the Labour party? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No. I am proud of what we have done, and we will be keeping it.

Stephen Phillips: My right hon. Friend has demonstrated considerable leadership in ensuring that Britain is the second largest bilateral aid donor in Syria, but there is another crisis going on, which the world has largely forgotten about. In Yemen, there is an ongoing war, as a result of which 1.4 million people have been forced to flee their homes, 3 million are facing starvation and at least 500,000 children are at risk from life-threatening malnutrition. The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has said that Yemen is in the same position after five months as Syria is after five years. Please can we do more?

David Cameron: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We have been involved in trying to help in this situation right from the start. As in Syria, we are a major contributor in terms of humanitarian aid, and we have made it very clear that all Yemeni parties should engage in peace talks, without preconditions and in good faith, to allow Yemen to move towards a sustainable peace. That peace needs to be based on the fact that all people in Yemen need proper representation by their Government. There are similarities with Syria in that regard, in that having a Government on behalf of one part of the country is never going to be a sustainable solution.

Kirsty Blackman: How dare anyone in this House earning £74,000 a year tell families that a combined income of £25,000 is too much and that they need to give some of it back to balance the economy? Did the Prime Minister refuse to put this in his manifesto because he knew that, if he did, he would not be elected?

David Cameron: Let me remind the hon. Lady about the situation we inherited. When I became Prime Minister, nine out of 10 families were getting tax credits, including Members of Parliament. That is how crazy the system we inherited was. We reduced that to six out of 10 families during the last Parliament, although we were of course opposed by Labour and the SNP. Our proposals will now take that down to five out of 10 families. But these proposals are not on their own: they are accompanied by a national living wage for the first time. They are also accompanied by allowing people to earn
	£11,000 before paying tax, for the first time. Those sorts of measures will help the sort of families she talks about.

Michelle Donelan: The Prime Minister spoke movingly at conference about the plight of young people in the care system. Will he tell me what the Government are actually going to do to improve the life chances of those young disadvantaged children and to give them opportunities as they move forward in their lives?

David Cameron: The most important thing we can do is to speed up the adoption system so that more children get adopted. We have seen an increase in adoptions since I have been Prime Minister, but because of one or two judgments, that has slipped backwards a bit, and we need to work very hard to make sure more children get adopted. For those who cannot be adopted, we need to make sure that our residential care homes are doing the best possible job. That is why I can announce today that I have asked the former chief executive of Barnardo’s, Sir Martin Narey—an excellent public servant who I worked with when he was at the Home Office—to conduct an independent review of children’s residential care, reporting to the Education Secretary and me, so that we can take every possible step to give those children the best start in life.

Ian Lucas: Redundant steelworkers such as those at Caparo Wire in Wrexham pay national insurance contributions and play by the rules. Why then are this Government limiting mortgage interest support for them in the future, and making them pay twice—once through national insurance and once through paying back the loan? Is that not the type of action that a responsible Government should not pursue, and is it not an example of compassionate Conservatism dying?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman refers to a temporary recession measure on mortgage payments that was continued for five years. He gives me the opportunity to update the House, as I promised that I would last night, on what we are doing to help the steel industry, which I know is so important to his constituency. On energy costs, I can announce today that we will refund the energy-intensive industries with the full amount of the policy cost they face as soon as we get the state aid judgment from Brussels. I can confirm that that payment will be made immediately, and that it will be made throughout this Parliament, which is far more generous than the Opposition proposal.

Graham Evans: I have had hundreds of emails from constituents regarding the northern powerhouse, and I have chosen just one. John from Weaver Vale emailed me to tell me not to listen to the Leader of the Opposition with his strategy of higher spending, higher borrowing and more debt, but instead to stick to our long-term economic plan for a higher-wage, lower-welfare and low-tax society. Does the Prime Minister agree with John from Weaver Vale?

David Cameron: I do agree. John from Weaver Vale has demonstrated more sense in his email than the Leader of the Opposition did in at least six of his questions.
	The point is that not only have we seen an economy that is growing—2 million more people in work—inflation that is low and living standards that are rising, but there are 680,000 fewer workless households and 480,000 fewer children in workless households. If we want to measure the real difference that the growth in our economy is making, think of those children, those households and the dignity of work.

Mark Durkan: Last weekend was the first anniversary of the death from cervical cancer of Derry girl Sorcha Glenn, aged 23. In June 2013, she had been concerned enough to ask for an early smear test, but was refused because she was under 25. As Team Sorcha, which highlights other cases, her family has now written an open letter to the Prime Minister. May I ask him not to offer here a reflex repeat of the rationale for current screening age policy, but to reflect on the questions raised about how that translates into refusing smear tests to young women such as Sorcha, and to consider the age-related data since the screening age was increased in 2004?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman raises an absolutely tragic case, and our thoughts go out to the family and friends involved. He raises an important case, because the UK National Screening Committee set the age at 25. My understanding is that that was not a resources-based decision. The reason was to do with the potential perverse medical consequences of carrying out screening routinely below that age. It is felt that there could potentially be a number of false positives because of the anatomical changes that go on at that age. As he says though, the matter is worth considering, as there are people who fear that they have family history and who ask for a test. I will certainly write to him on that specific issue.

Amanda Solloway: Yesterday, the EU said that we can no longer have internet filters to protect our children from indecent images. I want to know what the Prime Minister will do to ensure that our children remain protected.

David Cameron: Like my hon. Friend, I think that it is vital that we enable parents to have that protection for their children from this material on the internet. Probably like her, I spluttered over my cornflakes when I read the Daily Mail this morning, because we have worked so hard to put in place those filters. I can reassure her on this matter, because we secured an opt-out yesterday so that we can keep our family-friendly filters to protect children. I can tell the House that we will legislate to put our agreement with internet companies on this issue into the law of the land so that our children will be protected.

Tim Farron: May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s earlier remarks about the late Michael Meacher, who was a decent man, a good constituency MP and an extremely effective Environment Minister?
	Yesterday I visited the refugee camps on Lesbos, and there I met families that were inspirational and desperate. Alongside the British charity workers I found there, I am frankly ashamed that we will not offer a home to a single one of those refugee families. Will the Prime Minister agree to Save the Children’s plea that we as a country should take 3,000 vulnerable unaccompanied children in Europe, some of whom are as young as six?

David Cameron: Let me again welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, and it is good to see such a high turnout from his MPs.
	Let me answer him directly. We have taken the decision as a country to take 20,000 refugees and we think that it is better to take them from the camps instead of from inside Europe. I repeat today that we will achieve 1,000 refugees brought to Britain and housed, clothed and fed before Christmas. On his specific question about the 3,000 children and the proposal made by Save the Children, I have looked at the issue very carefully and other NGOs and experts point to the real danger of separating children from their broader families. That is why to date we have not taken that decision.

Christopher Pincher: As he begins his negotiations on our reformed relationship with the European Union in earnest, will my right hon. Friend confirm to our partners and the British people that no option is off the table and that all British options will be considered, including the option of a relationship such as that of Norway if it is negotiable and in our interest?

David Cameron: I can certainly confirm to my hon. Friend that no options are off the table. As I have made clear, if we do not get what we need in our renegotiation I rule absolutely nothing out. I think that it is important that as we have this debate as a nation we are very clear about the facts and figures and about the alternatives. Some people arguing for Britain to leave the European Union, although not all of them, have pointed out a position like that of Norway as a good outcome. I would guard strongly against that. Norway pays as much per head to the EU as we do and takes twice as many migrants per head as we do in this country, but has no seat at the table and no ability to negotiate. I am not arguing that all those who want to leave the EU say that they want to follow the Norwegian path, but some do and it is very important that we are clear in this debate about the consequences of these different actions.

Rupa Huq: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating my 17-year-old constituent, Jessy McCabe, on her 3,800 name e-petition, which has managed to get the exam board Edexcel to accept women composers on the syllabus for the first time ever? While he is at it, will he tell us whether he is a feminist?

David Cameron: If feminism means that we should treat people equally, yes, absolutely. I am proud that women make up a third of the people I have sitting around the Cabinet table, which we promised and we delivered. I congratulate the hon. Lady on this e-petition, which sounds thoroughly worthwhile. Her constituent and her have done a good job.

Andrew Turner: NHS England knows that the Isle of Wight clinical commissioning group is a significant outlier in relation to its allocation targets. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that progress is being made to identify the factors affecting the island? Will we benefit from amendments to the new CCG formula?

David Cameron: It is right that decisions on allocations are made independently of Government and not by Government. That is how the formula is reached. I can also tell my hon. Friend that there is an independent review of the funding formula under way. We expect to see its recommendations later this year, but these things should be done in a fair and transparent way.

Mary Creagh: The Prime Minister will remember meeting my constituents, Neil Shepherd and Sharon Wood. Nine years ago this week, Neil took their two children, Christi aged 7 and Bobby aged 6, on holiday to Corfu. The children tragically died of carbon monoxide poisoning. The family’s dearest wish is that no other family suffers the heartbreak and tragedy they endured. Tomorrow in the European Parliament there will be a vote on the recommendation that the Commission brings forward legislation to improve carbon monoxide safety and fire safety for tourism premises in the EU. Will the Prime Minister’s MEPs support it and, if the motion falls, will he consider instigating legislation in this country?

David Cameron: I well remember the meeting that we had and the great bravery of the parents, after their terrible loss, in wanting to go on and campaign to ensure that others did not lose children in the same way. I will look carefully at what the hon. Lady is saying about the European Parliament. As for legislation in this country, we have strict legislation on the use of fire-resistant materials, but I will look carefully at that too.

West Midlands Combined Authority

Michael Fabricant: If he will have discussions with the Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Communities and Local Government to determine the progress of the Midlands Engine initiative and the proposed West Midlands combined authority.

David Cameron: The Chancellor and I set out an ambitious long-term plan for the midlands, making it a future engine for growth for the whole of the UK. Across Government, we are actively working with business leaders and local authorities to progress this ambition.

Michael Fabricant: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. The northern powerhouse will help millions, but it is the west midlands that is the only region in the UK that has a trade balance surplus with China, and it is Greater Birmingham that has the fastest rate of private sector job creation in the UK since 2010. So will the Prime Minister now ensure, in the national interest, that the west midlands secures the best devolution deal possible?

David Cameron: I think we have huge potential here to secure massive devolution to the west midlands. First, I would say to everyone in the west midlands who is concerned that somehow they will be left out by the northern powerhouse that the west midlands is in the perfect place to benefit both from the success and growth of London and, of course, a rebalancing of our economy towards the north of England. We look forward to the West Midlands combined authority coming forward with its plans. I would say to all of these areas contemplating devolution and devolution deals that the more they can put on the table, the bolder they can be with their vision, and the bolder the response they will get from Government.

Ian Austin: May I tell the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that there is strong support from all the parties, the local enterprise partnerships, business and local authorities right across the west midlands for a properly funded and significant devolution deal to strengthen the economy, to boost productivity, to get the brownfield sites redeveloped and to tackle congestion, so that we can transform the west midlands, with more jobs, better skills, quicker transport links and new homes?

David Cameron: I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman what an opportunity there is in the west midlands to work across party, to get the best deal across all these authorities. As I said, the more we can get the local authorities to come together and work together and put their ambition and vision on the table, the better the response they will get from the Government.

Engagements

Simon Burns: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that bullying in the workplace is reprehensible? Can he tell me whether the Government are planning any review of the legislation with a view to extending it to this Chamber?

David Cameron: Given that my right hon. Friend has been called for Prime Minister’s questions at 12.38, I would have thought any hint of bullying was clearly over in this House in any conceivable way. He suffers no disadvantage and I think that is a very good thing. But I must not make light of the subject—bullying in the workplace is a problem. I think we do need to make sure it is stamped out and dealt with wherever it occurs, and that should apply in Parliament, as elsewhere.

Commons Financial Privilege

Chris Bryant: (Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on the Government’s review of the financial privilege of the Commons under Lord Strathclyde.

Chris Grayling: On Monday, the House of Lords rejected a financial measure that had been approved three times by the elected House of Commons. We are clear that that raises constitutional issues that need to be examined carefully. We need to ensure—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Leader of the House. This is a very serious matter and it would be seemly if colleagues who are leaving the Chamber did so quickly and quietly and if others inclined to conduct private conversations decided to do so outside the Chamber. There is a very important matter being treated of by the Leader of the House in response to the urgent question.

Chris Grayling: We need to ensure that we have arrangements in place that protect the ability of elected Governments to secure business that has the support of the elected House.
	Yesterday the Government announced that we are in the process of setting up a review to examine how to protect the ability of elected Governments to secure their business in Parliament. The review will consider in particular how to secure the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters and on secondary legislation. The review will be led by Lord Strathclyde, supported by a small panel of experts.
	The relationship between the Commons and the Lords is extremely important. When conventions that govern that relationship are put in doubt, it is right that we review that. Clearly, the House will be fully updated when more details of the review have been agreed.

Chris Bryant: It is clear that the Government intend to give the House of Lords a kicking, but they should remember, as they fashion this pretend constitutional crisis, that the vast majority of people in this country applauded the Lords on Monday, because the measure was not in the Government’s manifesto. Does the Leader of the House see no irony at all in getting a Member of the House of Lords—and, for that matter, a hereditary peer—to review the financial privilege of the House of Commons? Is this the right person for the task? After all, in 1999, Lord Strathclyde said of the convention that the House of Lords did not strike down statutory instruments:
	“I declare this convention dead.”
	That same day, he and the Lords voted down two Labour Government statutory instruments. Now he thinks that it is an utter disgrace to do so. Is there one rule for Tory regulations and another for Labour ones? Is he now a convert or frankly just a hypocrite?

Mr Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] I am perfectly capable of dealing with these matters. I certainly do not require any sedentary chuntering, however well-intentioned, from hon. Members. Their interventions are superfluous. The shadow Leader of the House should withdraw that term.

Chris Bryant: I withdraw that term unreservedly, Mr Speaker; I presume that he is a convert.
	Why are there no representatives of other parties or of the House of Commons on the review panel? Would it not be better for this House to conduct its own inquiry into the operation of secondary legislation? Could not the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, whose admirable Chairman is in the Chamber now, do the job far better?
	Is there not a far simpler means of guaranteeing the financial privilege of the Commons? The Government should stop relying on secondary legislation and introduce properly scrutinised primary legislation as money Bills that are covered by the Parliament Act instead. In all honesty, is it not a disgrace that measures affecting 3.2 million people should be decided in a 90-minute debate with no opportunity for amendment? There is a very simple principle here: money Bills do not receive scrutiny in the Lords, so they get extra time in the House of Commons; secondary legislation does not get much time in the Commons, so it does receive consideration in the Lords.
	Does the Leader of the House not realise that the Lords had the power they did on Monday only because the Government tried to sidestep scrutiny by using secondary legislation dependent on the Tax Credits Act 2002, section 66 of which specifies that changes to tax credit rates must be approved by both Houses of Parliament? As things stand, the Government rely on hundreds of Acts that have the same provision. Does the Leader of the House intend to make retrospective amendments to each and every one of those Acts, and will he use the Parliament Act to drive that through?
	We have very few checks to Executive power in this country. If we do not protect our constitution, it is not worth the paper it is not written on. There is a real danger that if Parliament as a whole lets the Government of the day dismantle every check and balance, they will no longer be governing by consent—and that really would be a constitutional crisis.

Chris Grayling: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman’s experience as a parliamentarian, but he will not be surprised to learn that I tend not to anticipate the outcomes of reviews before they have even started. I said a moment ago that we would publish full details of the terms of reference and the full review panel in due course, so he will have to wait to see the full detail when we bring it to this House. There is no restraint on any Committee of this House from carrying out any inquiry that it wishes to conduct, within its remit. Lastly, on primary legislation, it is a simple fact that tax credits are classified as a benefit. They cannot be included in a money Bill. You, Mr Speaker, would not certify a Bill containing a reference to tax credits as a money Bill, so I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Kenneth Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the 2002 Act was produced by Gordon Brown precisely to keep tax credits out of a Finance Bill so that he could alter them by statutory instrument and raise them before elections without proper scrutiny? Will he confirm that the Labour and Liberal peers, having discovered that they have a large party political majority in the upper House, are using it with increasing frequency and that they have cast a vote that is totally contrary to every sensible understanding of the constitutional position for the past 100 years? Indeed, the situation is an exact replica of the Conservative peers foolishly voting against Lloyd George’s Budget.
	The Lords does not vote against Budget measures. So although I welcome the advice of my noble Friend Lord Strathclyde, for whom I have enormous respect, will my right hon. Friend not delay too long before bringing forward legislation that sets out clearly what convention has previously established? If the Lords keep repeating these party political votes, it will be almost impossible to have stable government taking firm and difficult decisions for the remainder of this Parliament, when presumably they will start misbehaving with ever more frequency.

Chris Grayling: I share my right hon. and learned Friend’s concerns. He makes his point with his usual wisdom, and I hope very much that Lord Strathclyde will address the issues to which he refers. It is essential that these matters are dealt with. It is worth remembering that in 13 years of Labour government, the Labour party did not have a majority in the House of Lords, yet Conservative peers and others respected the conventions. It is a great shame that Labour and the Liberal Democrats clearly have no intention of respecting the conventions and will cast them out of the window, which will fundamentally change the relationship between the two Houses.

Pete Wishart: I am sure the British public are amazed and bewildered by that ermine-handbags-at-dawn spat between the Tories and the unelected Lords in this great battle of the nobles. We on the Scottish National party Benches are hoping it is a double knock-out blow.
	Is it the case that the way democracy now works in the UK is that if the Government do not like what one part of the legislature does, they simply emasculate it or re-appoint it? Is this the sort of democracy we are living in? The emergence of the cronies and donors as some sort of ermined tribunes of the people is a ridiculous concept. We have great concerns about Lord Strathclyde. An unelected Tory peer—[Interruption.] Indeed, a hereditary peer is to handle this inquiry. The only comfort we take from this case is the fact that he reviewed and reported on the Scottish Tories and set recommendations in place for their progress in future. They are now at 14% in the polls.

Chris Grayling: I know very straightforwardly what the hon. Gentleman’s submissions will be to any review of the relationship between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. He can surely take comfort also from the fact that Lord Strathclyde is a Scot and therefore brings to this job great wisdom.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement made yesterday and assure him that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee requires no instructions from the Government about what inquiries we will carry out, and nor does it require any prompting from the Opposition.
	At our meeting yesterday, we started to cross-examine witnesses about events on Monday, and we will be looking at what Lord Strathclyde is likely to consider, but there is a simple point to make. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Parliament Act 1911 established the principle of financial privilege at a time when there was very little secondary legislation? Now that so much is done by secondary legislation, it should not be too complicated to make sure that that principle in the 1911 Act is extended to secondary legislation, to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

Chris Grayling: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and his Committee will look closely at those issues. I am not in the least bit surprised to learn that they have made a start. Most Members of the House realise that this week has marked a significant change or potential change in the relationship between the two Houses. We need to establish a firm foundation for the future. My hon. Friend and his Committee will play an active role in that. When change is necessary, I want to bring it forward as quickly and sensibly as possible, but we need to take the time to get it right and ensure that we deal with the issues for the foreseeable future.

David Hanson: Will the Leader of the House ensure that the review includes whether the House of Lords has the right to vote down measures introduced by a Government who said that they would not take such measures? Secondly, will the members of the review panel be paid a daily rate? If so, will it be higher than the minimum wage?

Chris Grayling: As I have said, we will bring forward full details of the review panel and the terms of reference in due course. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that nobody can be in any doubt that the Government won a general election in May saying that we would have to take tough decisions and cut welfare. That is what we are doing.

Liam Fox: Many of us in the House believe, as a point of principle, that those who make the law should be accountable to those who live under the law. Does my right hon. Friend accept that that is absolutely impossible as long as we have an appointed Chamber? How does he feel about the fact that, nowadays, only Britain and Iran have unelected clerics in our legislatures?

Chris Grayling: As we have learned from debates over the past few years, there are strong opinions in the House about the need for reform. Up to now, the House has chosen not to pursue the avenue of reform of the House of Lords, but it is difficult to see how, in the wake of these events, there can be no change at all to the relationship between the two Houses.

Tom Brake: The Lords were right and entitled to table the fatal motion and it has not created a constitutional crisis. That is a smokescreen to distract attention from the pain that would have been inflicted by tax credit cuts on 3 million working families on low incomes. If the Leader of the
	House wants to reform the House of Lords, I recommend that he dusts down all the hard work done in the coalition on House of Lords reform. This time, he should get the Conservative party to support those reforms rather than scupper them.

Chris Grayling: I am not sure how the Liberal Democrats advance their case for reform by throwing out conventions and behaving in a way that is contrary to all the workings of Parliament over the past few decades. They can by all means make the case for reform, but they should not behave in a way that is simply designed to wreck the manifesto of an elected Government.

Cheryl Gillan: The House knows only too well that knee-jerk reactions leading to rapidly made legislation often result in poor law. What assurances can the Leader of the House give that such a hastily convened commission will be given reasonable time to carry out its work, and that no pressure will be brought to bear on it on the timetable? We do not want results produced in haste that we regret at our leisure.

Chris Grayling: One thing I said clearly yesterday was that I do not think we should do change on the hoof and rush headlong into change. Equally, we must accept that there appears to be a strategy in the House of Lords—an alliance between Labour and Liberal Democrat peers—to demolish the Government’s platform on which we were elected in May. This cannot therefore wait forever, but I accept my right hon. Friend’s point that we must do it carefully and properly.

Nicholas Dakin: Does the Leader of the House appreciate the irony of selecting a hereditary peer who has previously said that the convention is dead to undertake the review?

Chris Grayling: It is entirely sensible to pick a respected senior figure who knows the workings of government and of the House of Lords, and who will undoubtedly produce words of wisdom for all of us.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My friends on the Scottish National party Front Bench want me to mention that, from 1407—the beginning of the 15th century—the Commons was given primacy over financial matters. That was confirmed in our motion of 1678, when all matters of taxation and expenditure were to be the preserve of this House. In 1839, the Speaker of the House of Commons insisted that an amendment from the House of Lords on a financial matter must be rejected. At that date, the House of Commons would not even consider the change of a trustee of a turnpike trust if it was suggested by the House of Lords, so jealous were we of the privilege that the democratic House must have control of taxation and expenditure.
	May I urge my right hon. Friend to send the clearest message to the House of Lords that, if their lordships do not obey the conventions that have governed this country for centuries, they will be forced to do so by legislation?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend speaks with enormous wisdom and knowledge on these matters. He will not be surprised to remember that history was downplayed in our curriculum under the Labour Government. Parliamentary history does not appear to be top of the knowledge of Members of the other place. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have traditions and ways of working in this country that date back decades and centuries. They have been cast away this week entirely inappropriately. It would be a huge mistake for us to allow them to slip away. It is a shame that the Opposition parties appear not to respect them.

Mr Speaker: Order. I gently ask the Leader of the House to face the House so that we all get the benefit of his words.

Alex Salmond: As we all carefully reflect on the 15th-century precedent, could we also carefully reflect on the modern world? A Government elected on 37% of the vote and 14% in Scotland might not be expected to win every single Division in the legislature. Should the Government not accept that their position seems to be based on a sense of entitlement as opposed to an attachment to the democratic ballot box?

Chris Grayling: The issue has nothing to do with entitlement and no Government should ever take either House for granted, but it is not unreasonable that, when precedents and conventions have existed for handling financial matters for decades and decades, they should be respected.

John Stevenson: Does the Leader of the House agree that the time has come for proper reform of the House of Lords? By “proper reform”, I mean a reformed Chamber that is fully elected.

Chris Grayling: From talking to colleagues around the building, I know that House of Lords reform has returned very much to the centre stage, but we face big challenges in this country and have important legislation to get through. I want to deal first with challenges in health, education, environmental matters, enterprise and the economy, but there is no doubt that reform will now be discussed much more widely in the House.

Helen Goodman: The Leader of the House has explained why the measures were not in a Finance Bill. He seems to be confused: he seems to believe that the big bill attached to tax credits makes them a finance measure. If we follow his logic, no Bill that involves spending could go to the other place, be it on legal aid or HS2.

Chris Grayling: Let us be clear to the House—this is a very simple matter—that tax credits are officially categorised as a benefits matter and not a tax matter. If one puts a change to tax credits into a Finance Bill, that Bill will not necessarily be certified as a money Bill. That is the state of play and the reality of what we are dealing with. That is why the tax credits measures were not in a Finance Bill.

Peter Bone: Has not the Leader of the House just said why the Lords were entitled to amend the statutory instrument? They did not reject it but delayed it because it clearly was not a tax measure. If it had been a tax measure, we would have put it in the Finance Bill. We are seeing a knee-jerk reaction to the House of Lords doing what it is supposed to do. I am all for a review, but let us have a proper review and take our time over it. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on that and announce more than just Lord Strathclyde heading a review?

Chris Grayling: It is absolutely essential that we do not rush this. We have said that there will be a panel of people working with Lord Strathclyde. Their names will be announced in due course, but I remind my hon. Friend that a statutory instrument has been rejected by the House of Lords in that way only five times in the past century. This is the first time that it has happened to a specifically budgetary measure. That is the important change.

Mark Durkan: Before we all join the Lords resistance army in a synthetic constitutional crisis, will the Leader of the House not acknowledge that the real issue is not the procedural powers of respective Houses in this Parliament, but the spending powers of hard-pressed and hard-working households in this country? In any review, will he ensure that our first priority is to get this House in order, not another?

Chris Grayling: I think that this House is in perfect order. It has voted for these measures five times and passed them five times.

Henry Smith: I frequently take schoolchildren and visitors from other democratic countries on tours of this building, and I always feel slightly awkward when explaining that the House of Lords is appointed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) suggested, is it not time we had a fully elected second Chamber?

Chris Grayling: I know that my hon. Friend thinks that, along with a number of other Members. Certainly, as a result of Monday’s activities, that debate is likely to restart in this Parliament, having not continued in the previous one.

Chris Matheson: Does the Leader of the House not accept that the other place has a constitutional role to provide pause to this House when it feels that we have taken a decision that is wrong and out of sync with the feelings of the country? Why should we take seriously his views on the powers of the other place, and indeed the views of Government Members, given that he is continuing to pack that House will 50-odd new peers at the same time as slashing the number of elected Members of this House by 50?

Chris Grayling: The simple reality is that this House has now voted for these changes five times—prior to Monday it was three times. Ultimately, it must be the elected House of Commons that has the final say on these matters, which is why the actions of the House of Lords were, in my view, unacceptable.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Strathclyde review and the Leader of the House’s reiteration of the primacy of the elected House of Commons.
	The shadow Leader of the House alluded to our unwritten constitution, which is a constitution of convention. Is it not the case that the House of Lords has breached that convention and therefore, by definition, is acting in a very unconstitutional manner?

Chris Grayling: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In recent years I have heard many Members of the House of Lords stress the importance of convention, but on this occasion they appear to have completely ignored it, which is why we now face this issue.

Wayne David: Will there be any political balance on the panel, and will it be taking evidence?

Chris Grayling: As I said earlier, we will give more details about the panel’s composition and terms of reference shortly.

Andrew Turner: Is it not true that although changes to the House of Lords might be necessary, the last thing we want is another House of Commons?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend sets out one of the great subjects of debate: if we replace the House of Lords with something else, should it be elected? As he knows, that has been debated several times since he and I were first elected in 2001, and I suspect that it will now be debated again. The important thing, from my point of view, is to deal in the coming months with the apparent wrecking strategy that Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords appear to be taking to the platform of the elected Government, so we have to resolve these matters quickly.

Kirsty Blackman: The Conservative Government keep trying to play politics with this but keep finding themselves in a hole. For a start, they did not put the tax credits policy in their manifesto, which has allowed the Lords to vote against it. Then they introduced it in a statutory instrument, which also allowed the Lords to vote against it. Now they have appointed a hereditary peer to conduct a review into the unelected House of Lords. Mr Speaker, when will the Government stop digging?

Chris Grayling: We have appointed a respected former Leader of the House of Lords, and a compatriot of the hon. Lady, to conduct a review, and I think that he will do an excellent job.

Patrick Grady: Yesterday the Chancellor said that the House of Lords has no mandate for tinkering with his tax credit changes, but, with 14% of the vote, it is his Government who have no mandate to introduce their vicious welfare reforms up in Scotland. After all the constitutional tinkering we have already had to introduce English votes for English laws, would not the solution to both constitutional conundrums be to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an English Parliament?

Chris Grayling: The Scottish nationalists keep making that argument. Over the past few weeks, I have listened to them express fury about the introduction of EVEL because it gives them less say over matters that they say affect Scotland. But an English Parliament would give them no say, so their argument simply does not stack up.

Points of Order

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has pointedly refused to answer any questions about the terms of reference of the panel of experts, its members and whether they will be paid, or whether they will be able to take evidence. He said that he would make those details available in the fullness of time. He has chosen not to make a written ministerial statement or an oral statement to the House, so we cannot presume that he will make the details available to the House before he makes them available to the rest of the country. I wonder whether he might now like to leap to his feet to point out that he will make all the details available in the Library.

Mr Speaker: The Leader of the House is entitled to rise to his feet, but he is not obliged to do so. I think that it would be fair to say that these matters, as far as I can discern, are under consideration. Conclusions have not been reached. The detail is not yet known. It will be decided in due course. The request is that the House be informed first. I think that it would be a reasonable supposition that if an important part of the subject matter is the prerogatives of the House of Commons, it will occur to the Leader of the House first to notify the House of Commons of the particulars.

Chris Grayling: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: I think, judging by the gentle nod of assent from the Leader of the House, from which the Government Chief Whip does not demur, that that is indeed, at any rate now, the Government’s intention. [Interruption.]

Chris Grayling: And it is what I said in my statement.

Mr Speaker: And it is what the Leader of the House said in his statement. [Interruption.] Order.

Alex Salmond: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that it is in order for the Leader of the House to contribute from a sedentary position; he must go to the Dispatch Box and inform us of what he has just said.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think that I can make a judgment about the handling of matters. [Interruption.] Order. It is certainly open to the Leader of the House to come to the Dispatch Box, but he is not obliged to do so. I think that it is clear that we will get the details and that they will be communicated first to the House.

Chris Grayling: indicated assent.

Mr Speaker: We will take that as a yes, and I think that the Hansard writers will have recorded that. We will leave it there for now, although I always appreciate the attempts by the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) at what might be called diplomacy.

Diana R. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions today the Prime Minister said that the previous Labour Government failed to act on introducing free school meals. That is not correct. Having been Schools Minister in that Government, I know that we introduced three pilots for free schools meals for all primary school pupils in Durham, Wolverhampton and Newham, and the plan had been to roll them out in September 2010. When the coalition Government came into office, however, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats cancelled the scheme. Is it possible to have the record corrected, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady has just done that. As a spirited and indefatigable parliamentarian of nous, she knows that that is what she has just done.

Jonathan Edwards: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In recent days I have received two parliamentary written answers from two different Departments on exactly the same vital question for Wales of Barnett consequentials for HS2. The reply from the Department for Transport provided a straight answer to a straight question and was very informative. Regrettably, the reply from the Treasury was not as useful, offering only a generic response that could be used to answer any question. What can be done to encourage the Treasury to follow the best practice of the Department for Transport when it comes to answering parliamentary questions?

Mr Speaker: I suspect that a representative of the Treasury will shortly hear of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. Meanwhile, it has been heard by, among others, the Leader of the House. It has been a long-standing practice, and one from which I certainly do not think for one moment that the current Leader of the House intends to depart, that the Leader of the House chases Ministers on the importance of timely and substantive replies. The hon. Gentleman is adding into the mix the incentive of wanting to compete favourably with another Government Department. The idea that the Treasury would want to be outclassed by any other Department strikes me as improbable. We will leave the matter there for today.

Regulation of Enforcement Agents (Collection of Council Tax Arrears)

Yvonne Fovargue: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the use of bailiffs and other enforcement agents by local authorities to collect council tax arrears; to establish a code of practice for enforcement agents; to create an independent bailiffs ombudsman to administer the code and to investigate and adjudicate complaints; and for connected purposes.
	This Bill deals with two interrelated problems which, taken together, are pushing too many people into a debt trap by forcing them to borrow more to pay council tax arrears and unaffordable bailiff fees. The first problem is that local councils are too ready to call in the bailiffs when people fall into arrears on their council tax bill. This is despite guidance that is meant to encourage local authorities to look towards establishing affordable repayment plans in such situations and thus avoid the bailiffs. The Bill gives people a stronger right to challenge councils to offer an affordable repayment option before instructing the bailiffs.
	The second problem is that bailiffs, despite recent reforms, continue to use unreasonable methods such as aggressive behaviour and intimidation. They charge unreasonable fees and misrepresent their powers in order to gain entry to collect goods. The Bill would ensure that when bailiffs are instructed they conduct collection activities in a reasonable and fair way. Crucially, for the first time, it will give people access to an independent ombudsman to secure redress when the bailiffs fail in their duty. At present, there are extremely limited circumstances where a complaint can be made to an existing ombudsman or where action can be taken through complicated court processes, leaving many people who feel they have been treated unfairly completely unsatisfied.
	The number of people contacting debt advice charities for help with council tax debt has increased rapidly in recent years. More than 63,000 people sought help from StepChange Debt Charity in 2014—a staggering 372% increase since 2010. Council tax arrears are the fastest-growing problem debt dealt with by National Debtline, and 24% of clients had this type of debt in 2014, up from 14% in 2007. It is the debt issue most commonly seen by local citizens advice bureaux. Too many cases are sent to the bailiffs, and sent too quickly, as the default option for many councils. A recent StepChange review found that half the clients who sought help from their council were instead referred to bailiffs—twice as many as were offered an affordable payment plan. Research by the Money Advice Trust in 2013 found that councils had referred debts to bailiffs on 1.8 million occasions in the course of a single year— a figure that rose to 2.1 million last year.
	Sending in the bailiffs often makes a bad situation worse, tipping people much deeper into problem debt. Many bailiffs still fail to comply with the national standards for enforcement agents. The high fees mean that six in 10 StepChange clients paid at least £310 extra for bailiff collections, and 15% have paid more than £420. Most people fell behind on other bills—naturally—or borrowed money, often from payday lenders or friends and family, in order to pay these fees. The lack of help means that people are more likely to fall into debt.
	They are more than three times as likely to take out a payday loan, twice as likely to borrow money from friends and family, and 50% more likely to fall into debt on other bills to pay the council tax demand.
	The previous Government committed to clamping down on aggressive bailiff behaviour, and last year a series of changes to their procedures was introduced. Those changes are a move in the right direction, but the light-touch approach does not seem to have had much effect. Recent Citizens Advice data showed that in the year since the regulations came into force there has been an extremely significant increase in the number of problems caused by bailiffs. Last year, Citizens Advice helped with 77,000 problems caused by bailiffs—an increase on the previous year’s figure of 45,000.
	The evidence from Citizens Advice also shows that people are continually intimidated by bailiffs. For example, one of its clients was told that he was “looking at a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks” if he did not pay his debt in full by the end of the day. Another bailiff told a client that he was going to come round with a “gang of lads” if the debt was not paid—and that threat was made within 24 hours of the enforcement notice being issued. Evidence from StepChange echoes this. A bailiff called at one of its client’s houses—a single parent—to collect unpaid council tax. She was threatened with prison unless she allowed the bailiff into the house. The bailiff said, in front of the child, “Do you want your two-year-old son to be taken away from you when you go to prison?”
	The ways in which bailiffs apply fees and charges cause huge numbers of problems for people facing bailiff action. One client had been paying a magistrates court fine of £600 via a deduction from her benefits while she was looking for work. When she found work, the deduction stopped. She had been paying for a considerable period, and she believed that she had paid off the fine. She received notice from a bailiff regarding an outstanding fine of £60. This was inflated to £370 by compliance and enforcement fees. The original documents asking for repayment had been given to her teenage daughter, who did not live at the property. The bailiff contacted the client by phone threatening to come round that day with a locksmith and a removal van if she could not pay in full. She offered £170 that day and £200 on the day she was paid, which was the following week, and the bailiff refused to accept that offer.
	Another common issue is bailiffs misrepresenting their powers to force entry into people’s homes. The forcing of entry is restricted to certain debts, but last year 67% of Citizens Advice advisers saw cases where bailiffs had misrepresented their powers by saying that they could break in, use force, and take the goods.
	This Bill will not solve everything, but it will help. It will put good practice guidance for councils and bailiffs issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Ministry of Justice on to a statutory footing, and introduce an ombudsman scheme for bailiffs. Together, those measures will provide a stronger impetus for councils and bailiffs to offer sustainable repayment plans to people in arrears and thus avoid pushing them into the debt trap. It is no use asking somebody on a low income to pay £370 by the end of the day.
	Problem debt costs the economy in the region of £8 billion, with councils picking up the bill for at least £2 billion through the cost of homelessness and additional demand for care, support and public health services. I fully recognise that councils are under huge pressure to balance their books in-year and are named and shamed based on collection rates, but it is counterproductive if their actions just add to people’s debt woes. They need to make more of a concerted effort to ensure that reasonable repayment plans are available and that debts are not simply passed on to bailiffs as a default position.
	As I have seen, the reform and regulation of bailiffs is not working, with too many still believing that they can act like a heavy mob, pressurising people into repaying by using illegal tactics. I believe that this Bill would take a considerable step further towards remedying the situation.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Yvonne Fovargue, Bill Esterson, Robert Flello, Graham Jones, Helen Jones, Andy McDonald, Anna Turley, Margaret Greenwood, Liz McInnes, Stella Creasy and Andrew Percy present the Bill.
	Yvonne Fovargue accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 November, and to be printed [Bill 87].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[8th allotted day]

Steel Industry

Mr Speaker: I advise the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the UK steel industry is of national strategic importance and should be supported by the UK Government; notes that the UK steel industry is in crisis and that the recent closure of SSI in Redcar has resulted in 2,000 direct job losses, with a further 1,000 contractor jobs lost and 6,000 jobs to be lost in the local supply chain, the announcement by Tata Steel that they will no longer produce steel plate at Dalzell, Clydebridge and Scunthorpe has resulted in 1,170 job losses, and that 1,700 jobs are at risk as Caparo Industries has gone into administration; recognises that for every direct steel job lost a further three indirect job losses will follow; further notes the vital importance of the steel industry to those local communities it serves, the proud industrial heritage of Britain’s steel towns and the very real threat to these parts of the country should the steel industry disappear; and calls upon the Government to take immediate action to protect the steel industry, including immediately implementing the Energy Intensive Industry Compensation Package, taking action with the EU Commission on antidumping measures, looking at temporary action on business rates, reviewing how regulatory frameworks impact the industry, and promoting local content and sustainability in procurement contacts, and for the Government to publish a full industrial strategy including what level of capacity the Government envisages is needed in the steel industry, so as to safeguard this vital strategic asset.
	Labour has secured this debate because the British steel industry is in full-scale crisis, and before they were pushed the Government seemed unwilling to do anything practical about it. In the last three weeks, 2,220 employees in Redcar have lost their jobs, 3,000 on-site contractors have been laid off, and 6,000 further jobs will be lost in the local community. The hard closure of the site means the effective destruction of its steelmaking assets, including what was the second largest blast furnace in Europe. The Government’s refusal to help has effectively ended 170 years of steelmaking in Redcar, destroying specialist local skills and condemning the community to a bleak future. Tata Steel’s announcement about the closure of its long products business in Scunthorpe, Dalzell and Clydebridge has cost 1,170 jobs, and effectively ended steelmaking in Scotland. The news that Caparo Industries has filed for administration means that 1,700 more jobs are at risk across the country.
	Alongside the tragedy of each job loss, and the ramifications for supply chains and local economies, there is a real worry that the UK’s steelmaking capacity is being sacrificed on the altar of laissez-faire economics by a Government who simply will not act to preserve our country’s strategic assets. Labour contends that steelmaking in the UK is an industry of national strategic importance and should therefore be supported by the Government.
	Steel is important for UK manufacturing as it helps our balance of payments, and it is vital for our defence and security. If we are about to embark on the huge infrastructure investments that the Chancellor is so fond of boasting about, surely we should ensure that
	UK steel has every chance to compete and win those contracts. To do that, we must ensure that the UK steel industry still exists when those contracts come up for competition. As the industry has lurched deeper into this wholly foreseeable crisis, the Government have been quick to come up with expressions of sympathy, but noticeably reluctant to take any decisive action.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend will be aware that concerns about the challenges facing the steel industry have been raised repeatedly in this House—I think there have been 10 debates—and there have been repeated questions, meetings, exchanges with officials from the Departments for Business, Innovation and Skills and of Energy and Climate Change, and others, for more than two years. Is she surprised, as I am, that it has taken until today for the Business Secretary to get on a train to Brussels and try to sort out this mess?

Angela Eagle: I certainly am surprised. If the Business Secretary needs an Opposition day debate to encourage him to do his job by going to Brussels and talking to the Commission after years of not doing that, we will secure more such debates and persuade him to do his duty, which he should have been doing in the first place.

Anna Turley: I was proud to secure a Backbench Business Committee debate on the crisis in the steel industry. It took place just one day before the Redcar steelworks paused production, yet we were accused by the Minister for the northern powerhouse of “showboating”. Does my hon. Friend think that that is an appropriate description for a parliamentary debate?

Angela Eagle: I was fairly astonished to read the comments from the Minister for what the Government call the “northern powerhouse”. He said that what has happened to Redcar was a “tragic distraction” from his work on the northern powerhouse—I had hoped that he would have seen it as part of his job to try to get the Government to take much earlier action to head off an entirely foreseeable occurrence.

Mark Tami: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chinese have not just started dumping steel but have been doing so for a long time?

Angela Eagle: They have, and I will come on to the Chinese later in my remarks.

Bill Cash: I lived in Sheffield for the best part of 30 years. Does the hon. Lady accept that the real decline in the steel industry started with the horrendous nationalisation of the industry by the Labour party? What steps have Labour Governments ever taken to restrict state aid in other parts of the European Union, and from countries such as Germany and others?

Angela Eagle: I suspect that the nationalisation of the steel industry took place before I was born, and we could have a history lesson on that. There are many examples of EU Governments who do a much better job at preserving their steel industries than this Government appear to have done so far.

Wayne David: The House of Commons Library has produced a paper on European state aid. It states clearly that Germany, for example, gives more than twice the amount of state aid that is provided in this country. Moreover, a raft of indirect state aids are given in Germany, but this Government have decided not to do that in this country.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend’s comments speak for themselves.

Sylvia Hermon: When this Conservative Government were considering devolving to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set their own corporation tax, they were exceedingly concerned that that would be a state aid and illegal under EU legislation. However, where there is a will there is a way, and within the Stormont House talks the Government have been able to devolve that power to set corporation tax. This Government should have the will to save the steel industry in this country, and ensure that such aid is not illegal under the state aid rules.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Lady is correct. Many EU Governments manage to deal with the state aid rules far more creatively than this Government.

Geraint Davies: On the EU helping out, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for carbon tariffs from the EU so that we do not displace clean steel produced in Britain with dirty steel produced in China and elsewhere?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend’s practical suggestion should be considered with great seriousness not only by the Government but by the EU.
	The steel summit in Rotherham was convened only following the Backbench Business Committee debate, and it ended with more job losses and no significant Government announcements. Far from keeping the House informed as the crisis has unfolded, the Government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the House to answer urgent question after urgent question.
	Steel is an energy intensive industry that inevitably results in extra costs being placed on it for environmental reasons, but the Government have the power to lower energy costs for steel producers through implementing the energy intensive industry compensation package immediately.

David Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: In a minute.
	Despite being announced in the Chancellor’s autumn statement in 2011, the most substantial part of this package is still waiting to be implemented. Ministers admitted in a parliamentary question to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) that they have not even bothered to raise the issue with the Commission in the last 12 months. It is clear that the Government have shown no leadership in Europe, and the Business Secretary is visiting the Commission for the first time today—better late than never I suppose, but what on earth has taken him so long? I welcome his visit, and I trust he will emerge from the Commission with some tangible progress—after all the foot dragging and inaction, it is about time he did.

Tom Blenkinsop: The EU emissions trading system has already been compensated—that is an EU-wide market taxation system—and we are talking about the carbon price floor, which was introduced by the Chancellor. He did not consult industry or talk to the European Union, and he had to go to Brussels—well, we do not know whether anyone has gone there yet; we presume the Business Secretary is there today—to get compensation for a tax that this Government introduced unilaterally and without any consultation with industry. That is the issue. We are talking about a compensation package for a British tax.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend represents many constituents directly affected by the closure in Redcar, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), and he demonstrates his knowledge of the problems faced by the British steel industry. It is a pity the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not acknowledge those problems when he came up with that policy.

David Mowat: rose—

David Davies: rose—

Angela Eagle: I said I would give way to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), so I will be polite and give way to him first.

David Davies: In the spirit of politeness, the hon. Lady and Opposition Members are absolutely right to raise this important issue, which affects many in my own constituency in south Wales. She mentioned environmental taxes. I have much sympathy with the point she is going to make, but does she not concede that it was her Government who brought in the environmental taxes in the first place?

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman needs to demonstrate to his constituents that he is fighting for their jobs now. He needs to be putting pressure on his own Front Bench to have a proper strategy. This is a heavy industry, which is, by definition, energy intensive. The problem is that the Government do not have a strategy and are living hand to mouth trying to deal with a crisis they should have seen coming.

Catherine West: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no strategy across the country? For example, Govia Thameslink is about to have new trains built for 2018, for the Hornsey depot in my constituency, yet there seems to be no attempt to get it to purchase steel from our own steelmakers.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend comes up with yet another example of the lack at the heart of this Government. They do not seem to believe we should have an industrial strategy. Therefore, as these contracts come up, they seem to be living from hand to mouth without actually having a coherent and proper strategic approach to use the power of government procurement to try to preserve UK jobs.

Andy McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be absolutely no doubt that the Conservative party does not believe in an industrial strategy? The Secretary of State for Business said in an article in the
	Financial Times
	not four weeks ago that he does not like industrial strategy. Does she not agree that that is an absolutely disgraceful statement for a Secretary of State to make?

Angela Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose constituents are particularly badly affected by the hard closure at Redcar. That hard closure will come to be seen as a folly of the highest order committed on this Government’s watch.

David Mowat: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Angela Eagle: I will give way one more time. This is a short debate and a lot of colleagues want to get in, so I hope Members will forgive me if I get on.

David Mowat: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) is right: the carbon tax floor is a bad tax and a tax on manufacturing, but so, too, is it true that in every one of the five or six occasions in the previous Parliament when we debated energy prices, Labour Members voted for higher energy prices. In particular, in December 2012 they were led through the Lobby to vote for the accelerated closure of the British coalfields in advance of anything happening in Europe. The carbon price floor is a unilateral tax, because the EU abandoned the emissions trading system and left us acting unilaterally in this regard.

Angela Eagle: In this Parliament, we always have to remember the issue of tackling climate change, but we have to balance that with the cost that that puts on our energy-intensive industries. We have to ensure that we get the balance right.

Julie Elliott: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Angela Eagle: I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I really will want to get on with the rest of my speech.

Julie Elliott: Does my hon. Friend agree that the carbon price floor was a tax introduced by the previous Conservative-led Government, and that it is an entirely revenue raising tax that does absolutely nothing to contribute to combating climate change?

Angela Eagle: Yes, I do.
	Rather than hiding behind the European Commission, why do the Government not take action first on energy-intensive industry payments and get retrospective approval later? That is what Germany did with its Renewable Energy Act 2012. It provided support to producers of renewable energy from January 2012. It did not submit the Act for prior state scrutiny. It let the Commission investigate and then state aid approval was received in November 2014, two years after it had first provided support. Why can our Government not look after the interests of UK steel in the same way? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Government have been so slow to act because they have an ideological aversion to any
	Government intervention. We have a Secretary of State who will not let the phrase “industrial strategy” cross his lips.
	We on the Labour Benches support international trade, but free trade must also be fair. China is currently responsible for a tsunami of cheap steel, which is being dumped on European markets. The UK should be at the forefront of demanding rapid and effective action to stop it.

Andrew Gwynne: We are not just talking about the here and now, but the longer-term economic vision for the country. As sure as night follows day, the steel price will recover at some stage and we could find ourselves without a steel industry and be wholly beholden to other countries.

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The steel industry is very cyclical in nature. During the hard times and the downturns, it is very important to try to act to preserve assets of strategic importance to our country, so that we can take advantage of the upswing and the recovery when it comes.
	China is currently responsible for a tsunami of cheap steel products. Last week’s Chinese state visit is over and done with, so I hope the Business Secretary will be making the case in Brussels today that we should act rapidly to stop the dumping of Chinese steel products in Europe. The scale of the new Chinese imports and the speed of their arrival is staggering. Its surplus production is nearly twice the annual production in the entire EU, and it is increasingly finding its way here. Chinese rebar has grown from having zero presence in the UK market in 2013 to comprising 37% of it a year later. There are quality concerns with some imported Chinese steel. We also know that Chinese steel production causes more environmental damage than UK production, so it is a false economy to allow it to continue.
	For both those reasons, action to tackle dumping is vital and long overdue. Perhaps the Minister can tell us, when she winds up, what she managed to achieve during her recent visit to China. I can tell her that both the leader of the Labour party and I raised this issue with Premier Xi and his delegation during the recent state visit to London. Did she raise it during her visit to China? If so, what are the Government actually going to do about the huge amount of imports and the dumping? When it comes to acting on China specifically, perhaps the Government should be less interested in selling off our nuclear industry and more interested in standing up for the strategic interests of the UK.
	Standing up for British steel means standing up for the high-quality skills that have built some of the UK’s, and indeed the world’s, most iconic landmarks. British steel built Canary Wharf, the new Wembley stadium and Sydney Harbour bridge, and it will be building the Freedom Tower in New York. We should all be proud of what the UK steel industry has achieved, but the Government cannot treat it as some relic of the past; it has to be a vital part of our country’s future. That is why the Government must do more—much more—to see the industry through these tough times and prepare it to seize future opportunities. The Government should publish an industrial strategy for steel and be open about how they envisage maintaining the strategic steelmaking assets in this country during hard times. It is only firm action now that will guarantee any future at all for UK production.
	I commend the campaign by the Daily Mirror, which is setting out daily the compelling case to save our steel. Just in case Ministers were in any doubt about the urgency, Gareth Stace of UK Steel has today described the industry as being like a patient on the operating table “likely to die” without help.
	Community, the main steel union, has called for an urgent meeting with the Business Secretary because of the ongoing threat to jobs, as it has emerged that no representative of the workforce, be it Community, the GMB or Unite, has yet been invited on to any of the working groups set up after the steel summit. [Interruption.] The Minister says there is no need to invite representatives of the workforce on to these working parties. Ministers should meet the workers from steelmaking communities, including Teesside, Lincolnshire, Yorkshire and south Wales, who are lobbying Parliament to hear at first hand, as I have, the real cost of Government inaction.
	The Prime Minister claims the Government are acting on procurement. Just yesterday, the Minister told the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee:
	“I would say buy British because it’s quality.”
	However, the inadequacy of the Government’s response was laid bare on the very same day, when it was revealed that the Government had just spent more than £3 billion on three new Royal Navy ships and 589 Scout specialist vehicles for the Army, which will use imported Swedish steel.

Kevan Jones: The Minister is a former Defence Minister, and her own Department announced this year the new £200 million icebreaker for the polar research undertaking. I tabled a question to the Minister for Universities and Science, who could give no commitment from the Business Department that the ship, which is being built at Birkenhead, would use British steel. Is that not a great example of where the Department could put its money where its mouth is?

Angela Eagle: I hope we can get some progress on procurement, not least from BIS, which is contracting out the icebreaker research vessel as we speak. Otherwise, all of this is a missed opportunity. The UK steel industry needs action, not good intentions. The Government need to act much more effectively on procurement, and if they do, we will support them, but we will judge them on the contracts awarded that guarantee a future for UK steel; we will not judge them on warm words or grand but meaningless press releases.
	The Government should explore the scope for acting temporarily on business rates. Failure to act is not cost-free, as the hard closure at Redcar demonstrated. With redundancy costs and employment support of £80 million and on-site clean-up costs running into hundreds of millions of pounds, it might well be that in the long run strategic support is far better value than the cost of total closure.
	Last week, the Business Secretary said that the Government would
	“do everything within their power to support”
	the industry, and he said to our steel communities:
	“We will not abandon you now, in your time of greatest need.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 815.]
	The Prime Minister had previously stated that the Government would
	“do everything we can to keep steelmaking in Redcar.”—[Official Report, 16 September 2015; Vol. 599, c. 1046.]
	The Government then abandoned the people of Redcar by refusing to mothball the plant and save the assets, which would have kept alive the possibility of a return to steelmaking in the future. In fact, the Minister said yesterday in evidence to the Select Committee:
	“It needed that awful moment in Redcar to concentrate all political minds in Government”.
	So, Redcar has been sacrificed and minds have been concentrated, and now we need to know what the Government are planning to do to safeguard the future of UK steel and what is left of our steel communities. In Redcar, Scunthorpe, Clydebridge, Dalzell and Rotherham, those facing uncertainty across the midlands and Wales—men and women who have spent years developing highly specialised skills but who now have to find alternative employment in local economies shattered by steel plant closures—are waiting to see how the Government intend to deliver on their warm words.

Ian Lavery: We saw this happen in the coalmining industry: jobs went and people were asked to retrain. It is an absolute disaster. I welcome the £80 million, but Redcar, Rotherham and the other areas have high unemployment. We can train people as much as we like, but the jobs are not there. Does my hon. Friend agree that the money should be invested in keeping the steel industry alive, instead of closing it and trying to retrain people for jobs that are not there?

Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend speaks with much passion because he has been through this process with the coal community. It is easy for the Minister to dismiss the searing experiences that our coal communities went through following decisions taken by the last Tory Government, but I do not think she should.

Tom Blenkinsop: We have to talk about the £80 million. We now know that the statutory redundancy was part of it, so that brings it down to £50 million. The northern powerhouse Minister wrote to one of his constituents informing them that the last month’s payroll would be paid out of that money as well, so it is now less than £50 million. To date, I have not seen evidence of more than £3 million—for the 50 apprentices—of the money promised. At the Steel House meeting, on the same day as the liquidation, we were informed, in front of other agencies and the press, that the vast majority of the £80 million would be new money. I know, other Opposition Members know and the Minister knows that less than £50 million of that is potentially new money. I would like to see evidence of what money, where, for who and when.

Angela Eagle: We would all like to see that. The Government do their cause no good by attempting artificially to inflate how much money they are giving to help a steel community that they refused to save by intervening in the hard closure.

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady, but the deferred Division has less than 15 minutes to run, and the ballot papers have run out. There are no papers available to vote in the deferred Division. Could you tell us what you are going to do about this and whether you will extend the period of the Division beyond 2 pm?

Natascha Engel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I am informed that this has now been sorted and that there are now ballot papers.

Angela Eagle: If only it was so easy to sort out the problems in the steel industry.
	Other countries across the EU support their workers. Other countries across the EU find ways to support their industry. In Germany and the Netherlands, we saw the Governments—

Toby Perkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Angela Eagle: I am just coming to the end—

Toby Perkins: rose—

Angela Eagle: Go on then.

Toby Perkins: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, who was obviously slightly reluctant to give way. She is making an incredibly important point. One of the things that will upset so many people who recognise the damage that will be done to their communities and the people left out of work is the sense that the Government have not done all they can. They see people in other industries in competitor nations around Europe being much better supported by their Governments. Does not the fact that the Secretary of State refuses even to show up for the debate demonstrate his contempt for steelworkers in our country?

Angela Eagle: I am always happy to give way to my hon. Friend, and I am not reluctant ever to listen to him. He makes an important point about other EU countries seemingly much better able and more willing to support their strategic industries. I believe that is because they do not have the ideological qualms that this Government have about the idea of an industrial strategy.
	Why will our Government not show the same commitment? We need an active industrial strategy. We need a proactive and strategic Government, not a Business Secretary in thrall to an outdated economic theory and too eager to offer the Chancellor huge cuts to his Department in a bid to burnish his Thatcherite credentials and prepare for the leadership battles ahead. Last week, the Prime Minister claimed that the Government wanted a
	“strong and viable steel industry.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 948.]
	Now they have to tell us what they intend to do to secure it.

Stephen Crabb: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“is concerned by the impact that recent redundancies in the steel sector could have on local communities and welcomes Government support for affected people in those communities; recognises the unprecedented global challenges currently facing the UK steel industry and agrees that all parties, including Government, opposition parties and the industry need to work together to secure a sustainable future for UK steel; and notes that the Government is in regular dialogue with the industry, including hosting a recent Steel Summit, and is taking urgent action to address both the industry's short-term and long-term concerns, including energy costs, unfair trade, the Industrial Emissions Directive and long-term procurement opportunities for the industry so as to ensure that the UK steel industry has a sustainable future.”.
	I should perhaps explain to the House that I am responding to this debate on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovations and Skills who is in Brussels right now having urgent and important discussions with European Commissioners to address the crisis that the steel industry faces all across Europe.
	I wish to start by saying that I have total respect for constituency Members who represent steel communities and who have come here this afternoon to speak passionately and earnestly on behalf of the workers and their families who are affected by this crisis. What has been really disappointing about the debate so far is the way that the Labour party has tried to turn this into a political football. I look across at the Opposition Benches to the faces of Members who were here before 2010 and I do not recall a single one of them coming to this place and standing up to speak up for steelworkers during Labour’s term of office, when the number of steelworkers in the UK fell by a half and the volume of steel production fell by a half. I think, therefore, that the Labour party needs to show some humility on this issue.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Stephen Crabb: As we debate this crisis today—[Interruption.]

Natascha Engel: Order. I think hon. Members need to calm down a little. If the right hon. Gentleman is not giving way, Members must sit down. If he is giving way, he will say so.

Stephen Crabb: I am happy to give way to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith).

Angela Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I was in this House from 2005, and Labour Members repeatedly made representations to the then Prime Minister, who listened to what we had to say. Before 2010, we did not have the carbon floor price. It is now damaging the steel industry significantly and this Government are doing nothing about it.

Stephen Crabb: I am not going to engage in a tit-for-tat on this. Let us just say that the record of the previous Labour Government on steel and on manufacturing was not a stellar one.

David Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members ought to do him the courtesy of listening to what he has to say? Does he agree that it was they who started bringing in the carbon taxes that have caused problems for manufacturing and that it is this Government who have tried to hold those taxes down?

Stephen Crabb: As we debate this crisis today, we rightly make the thousands of workers in the steel industry and their families, who have faced devastating news about their jobs, and the many more who are working with the cloud of uncertainty hanging over the industry at this time, the central and primary focus of our concerns. When an individual loses their job, the pressures it creates can be a tragedy for their family and themselves. When whole communities are affected by large-scale job losses, the impact can be devastating—I completely recognise that.

Nicholas Dakin: I am pleased that the Secretary of State is now looking forward, because I, along with my colleagues on the other side of the House, have been talking about the needs of the steel industry in our community since being elected to Parliament in 2010. We need to look forward together and work together to build a better future. It just so happens that it is his Government who can make decisions now, not anybody else.

Stephen Crabb: I completely take the hon. Gentleman’s points and I pay tribute to the work he does on behalf of his constituents.

Andrew Percy: I wish to make a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). Although the Secretary of State is right to point out that the steel industry halved under the last Labour Government, does he agree that it would be a cruel deception for anybody to suggest that the solution to this crisis is wholly in the hands of any one Government, be they the British Government or even the European Union? Does he also agree that the best way forward is to have as much political consensus as we can across the House, just as we do in north Lincolnshire? That is the only way of ensuring that we do as much as possible at the national level and at EU level to deal with a crisis where, sadly, many of the factors are outside the control of any of those Governments?

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend makes an essential point about two things: the global nature of the crisis, which I shall discuss a little further during my remarks; and the need for political consensus, where it is possible. Opposition Members and Conservative Members who know me from Wales know that that is exactly the kind of approach I like to take, but it does require two sides to play—
	Several hon. Members rose—

Stephen Crabb: I will take one more intervention and then I will make some progress.

Emma Reynolds: Jobs in my constituency are at risk at Caparo in Wolverhampton. I am asking, on behalf of the people there: when did the Government first see the signs of this crisis? Why has it taken them so long to do something about it? Those are the kinds of questions that my constituents are asking, because their jobs are at risk. This is not a party political thing; this is a practical thing about job losses that may be happening in my constituency and elsewhere.

Stephen Crabb: There is continuous engagement with the steel industry and there has been for a long time; we have been discussing concerns with the industry since the beginning of the coalition Government in 2010. A Labour Member made the point earlier that this crisis has been around for a long time, but the phenomenon that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) described as a “tsunami” of cheap Chinese steel is very recent, and it has completely changed the global dynamics of the steel industry.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Stephen Crabb: I am not going to take any more interventions for the time being.
	The steel industry across Europe and around the world is in the midst of a crisis, the magnitude of which has not been seen in at least a generation. Chronic global overcapacity has squeezed prices to the extent that the price of certain products has halved in recent times and is expected to fall further still. European demand is still about 30% below pre-crisis levels. The Chinese economy, which has until recently been the driver behind global steel demand, is slowing down. The world is awash with cheap steel looking for markets. For some products, cheap Chinese imports have gone from accounting for 0% of the market to representing 37% of the UK market share within 18 months—that is an extraordinary growth in a very short period. Chinese steel exports roughly doubled between 2011 and 2014. That is the extremely challenging backdrop to the current crisis facing our steelworkers. It has been described as a “perfect storm” in terms of the configuration of different events and phenomena that are affecting the global steel industry, but that is why the Government remain absolutely committed to doing everything in our power to support steelworkers across Britain in the weeks, months and years ahead.

Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that giving the contract on HS2 to the Chinese will increase the probability that they will use Chinese steel? Moreover, if we had given that contract to a British consortium, those companies would have paid British corporation tax, British national insurance and British income tax, and they would have supported British supply chains and built British capacity for the future. Is not his laissez-faire approach, which has neglected British steel and British industry, at the root of this problem—or a large part of it at least?

Stephen Crabb: Forgive me for saying so, but the hon. Gentleman makes a slightly confused point. The investment going into the rail industry is creating opportunities, now and in the future—huge opportunities for the UK steel industry. The Government are determined to help the UK steel industry take advantage of those investment opportunities.

Kevan Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that last point?

Stephen Crabb: I will take an intervention later.
	We are providing support for those communities and families who have been affected by recent announcements. In Redcar, we have outlined a support package worth up to £80 million. We are working with the local taskforce we have established to develop proposals to support the individuals, the local economy and the supply chain.
	It is worth making the point that this is not a Whitehall, top-down solution; our commitment is to work with local partners to develop the right solution for those workers, their families and the communities. In Scunthorpe, we have set up a local taskforce to look at what needs to be done to support those affected and the local economy. Funding of up to £9 million has been provided to the Scunthorpe taskforce—

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought we were having a debate on steel today, but what we have is a Minister just reading out a civil service brief to the House. It is an absolute insult that he will not take any interventions. I know that BIS is not his own Department, so he might not understand the subject but surely the Government should have sent somebody who knows something about the subject rather than someone who is simply reading out what the civil service has given him.

Natascha Engel: I think the hon. Member has put his point on the record. Let the Secretary of State continue.

Stephen Crabb: Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was one of those Members I mentioned earlier who were here before 2010 and sat in silence while employment and manufacturing plummeted and UK steel production plummeted.
	Moving on, we are also supporting the Scottish Government’s taskforces in Dalzell and Clydebridge. We will work with them and also continue to monitor the situation in the black country to make sure that necessary support is provided for communities and families affected by the Caparo Wire announcements.
	The House understands that there are no easy solutions in the face of what are, unquestionably, incredibly difficult market conditions right now. Excess capacity in global steel is enormous—about 570 million tonnes last year, almost 50 times the UK’s entire annual production. The price of steel slab has fallen by a half in the past year alone, while fluctuating exchange rates have added further pressures.

Tom Blenkinsop: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about production, but what we have in the home UK economy is 3 million tonnes of scrap steel, which we export to Turkey and China, and it comes back here in slab. Will the Government look at developing a potential strategy for electric arc furnaces on sites such as Redcar to use to create a new home market to supply the British market rather than exporting to Turkey and China?

Stephen Crabb: That is a useful and constructive point. It is, of course, the model that Celsa Steel uses in Cardiff. At the moment, we are looking at all aspects of the steel industry to identify future growth opportunities.

David Hanson: The Secretary of State talks about what he cannot do, so can he talk about what he can do, which is in the area of procurement? What proposals do the Government have to procure British steel products in the next 12 months to keep this business open and flourishing?

Stephen Crabb: I am coming on to exactly those issues. We all have to acknowledge and be honest about the fact that there are limits to what we can do in response to the economic realities facing the steel industry. I see Opposition Members shaking their heads, but I make the point again—they need to step back and be honest about the realities of a global steel crisis that is affecting steel manufacturers across north America and all across Europe.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I grew up in a steel-working family and have constituents who work in Llanwern. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept what is being said to me—that there is not an acceptance that the Government have done enough? There are social as well as economic consequences. There are huge problems in the global steel industry currently, but is this not the very moment for protecting our foundation steel industry and keeping it for the future?

Stephen Crabb: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is talking to European Commissioners right now and exactly why we have set up a programme of working groups to look at all aspects of how the UK steel industry functions to identify future growth opportunities and help the UK industry to take advantage of them. Where we can, we want to protect, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, the foundation of a strong UK steel sector.
	We cannot influence the price of steel and we cannot fix foreign exchange rates. The rules governing state aid to the steel sector are very strict. The UK steel industry signed up to those state-aid rules for a very good reason: the rules help secure a level playing field for UK steel within Europe. Within those strictures, we have done—and we are doing—all we can to help the steel industry at this very difficult time.

Peter Bone: I am grateful for the way in which the Secretary of State is conducting his speech and not making party political points. That is good news.
	On this specific point, the Government believe they can introduce compensation; the Prime Minister said that from the Dispatch Box today. If we believe that is within state-aid rules, let us just get on and do it—even if the European Union says no. We can worry about that consequence afterwards.

Stephen Crabb: We are pushing for a quick decision on the state-aid decision. Labour Members have referred to the German example. I have looked at it: Germany had a pre-existing scheme set up. When the new state-aid rules kicked in, that prevented other European countries from implementing a scheme on their own prior to seeking state-aid rules. That is why we have gone to get state-aid approval prior to bringing forward the compensation package.

Stephen Doughty: rose—

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman represents a steel constituency, so I give way to him.

Stephen Doughty: The Secretary of State is well aware of these issues, as I raised the issue of state-aid clearance with him and Celsa on 11 November last year. Will he confirm whether the state-aid clearance for the steel industry, which the Government say has been a top priority, has actually been at the top of the UK Government’s state-aid clearance priorities at any point in the last 12 to 24 months—and is it now? It is all very well talking about what the Secretary of State is doing today, but has that been at the top of the priority list for the last 12 months?

Stephen Crabb: We have absolutely been pushing for state-aid clearance on this. It is really important. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear today, as soon as that state-aid clearance is given, we will start paying the compensation to steel companies. It is worth pointing out that we have already paid out £50 million to a number of steel companies to compensate them for additional energy costs arising from environmental and climate change policies, a lot of which were imposed by a previous Labour Government.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Stephen Crabb: We are taking action to tackle unfair trading practices. We have already supported and voted for the renewal of anti-dumping measures at an EU level and lobbied for an investigation into cheap imports of reinforcing steel bar. We lobbied the EU because the steel industry raised its concerns with us; when the industry provides us with evidence, we act on its behalf. We will continue to do that by pressing the European Commission for firmer, faster action against unfair trade practices, and that is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is doing at this moment in Brussels.

David Mowat: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend referred to the pre-arrangements in Germany, by which its steel industry pays 4p for a unit of electricity and its consumers pay between 10p and 15p a unit. That was pre-arranged, but it cannot be right that the state-aid rules do not apply to those circumstances, while everything we try to do falls foul of those rules. That simply cannot be right; it may well be an EU rule, but it is not adequate.

Stephen Crabb: I agree with my hon. Friend about the price differential. We recognise that very significant differential, and we are determined to take action, but I do not agree that we fall foul of state-aid rules all the time. We are committed to doing what we can within the rules, to which not just the British Government but the UK steel industry have signed up.

Sammy Wilson: If we go down the road of looking for EU approval for changes to state-aid rules, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the situation will not be resolved quickly? When it came to corporation tax in Northern Ireland, it took four years, and when it comes to the aggregates levy, we are still fighting on the issue after eight years. Does he accept that by the time the EU gets round to making a decision, the steel industry is likely to be well gone?

Stephen Crabb: I do not accept that the European or the British steel industry will be “well gone”, to use the hon. Gentleman’s phrase, but I think he is right when he talks about the length of time it takes to get state-aid clearance on these issues. This is one aspect of the overall issue that we are pushing for. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise has had some discussions about this herself. This is a matter on which we are determined to take action—and not with respect only to the issue of state-aid approval that we are seeking at the moment, because we are concerned about the overall process for speeding up state-aid applications generally.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed this issue with President Xi of China during the important state visit last week. President Xi recognised the UK’s concerns and will be taking action to address Chinese overcapacity. The working group on international comparisons in the steel industry, chaired by the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, met last week and is looking at how we can speed up cases within the EU by working with other member states facing similar issues and working with the industry to speed up its provision of evidence on dumping, which would mean that we could then take action.

Andrew Gwynne: rose—

Stephen Crabb: Secondly, we are addressing the impact on intensive energy users such as the steel industry of policies to reduce the negative impacts of climate change.
	As I said a moment ago, we have already given more than £50 million of support to the steel industry. We were the first EU country to pay compensation for indirect costs of the EU emissions trading system to energy intensives in 2013, we started to pay compensation for the costs of the carbon price support mechanism as soon as the European Commission gave state clearance in 2014, and we exempted the metallurgical industry from the climate change levy in the same year. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced, we will provide further compensation for climate change policies, with payments starting as soon as state aid is approved and continuing throughout the current Parliament.

Andrew Gwynne: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman has been very persistent, so I will.

Andrew Gwynne: We must remember that behind all this are communities, and individuals living in those communities, who are facing a very uncertain future. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to dissociate himself and the Government from the views of his noble Friend Lord Heseltine, who has said that now is as good a time as any to lose a job? Is it not time that he found himself a different job too?

Stephen Crabb: I have no idea what comments the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I do know that the noble Lord whom he mentioned has a track record of regeneration, winning support for UK industries, selling UK plc around the world and driving up growth in some of the most deprived parts of the UK to which not a single Labour Member could aspire.
	All energy-intensive industries will benefit from the compensation at the earliest opportunity, and we are working with the Commission to gain approval quickly for proposals to provide additional relief for the impact of indirect low-carbon energy policy costs. The Business Secretary spoke to the Commissioner last week, and, as I said, he is in Brussels again today to make the need for urgency clear to our colleagues there. Once they are in place, these measures will save energy-intensive industries such as the steel industry hundreds of millions of pounds over the next five years.
	Thirdly, we are determined to drive up the number of public contracts won by UK steel manufacturers and their partners through fair and open competition. In the last Parliament, we successfully renegotiated EU procurement rules to allow wider social and economic considerations to be taken into account, and we were the first country to put those new rules into action in February 2015.
	We have identified more than 500 infrastructure projects and programmes, valued at over £400 billion and listed in National Infrastructure Pipeline, to help the industry to plan for and win contracts. Those contracts include Crossrail, which we are building with more than 50,000 tonnes of British steel, and HMS Queen Elizabeth, for which Tata provided 40,000 tonnes. We are currently embarking on the biggest programme of investment in our railways since Victorian times. Network Rail’s £38 billion, five-year investment and replacement programme includes demand for British steel worth billions of pounds, and Network Rail sources 95% of its steel from the UK.

Kevan Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Stephen Crabb: I will give way one last time, because I know that the hon. Gentleman likes talking about these issues.

Kevan Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for finally giving way. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is sponsoring a £200 million contract for a new polar research vessel. I know that his Department is not involved, but can he guarantee that the ship, which is to be built in Birkenhead, will be produced with British steel?

Stephen Crabb: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had no sight of the details of that issue, but I shall try to find an answer for him by the end of the debate.
	The steel procurement working group chaired by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office met representatives of UK Steel last week to work out what steps need to be taken to ensure that Government projects use as much British steel as possible, and that includes considering the feasibility of more central procurement.
	On 16 October, we hosted a summit with the key players from the UK steel industry to discuss where more progress could be made. The summit, which brought together industry leaders, trade unions, Members of Parliament and senior figures from the Government, created a framework for action that will help us to support steelworkers now and in the future. Progress needs to be made quickly, but we also need to find the right solutions rather than just rushing into action.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Stephen Crabb: We have working groups from the summit who will now supply evidence and recommendations to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The subjects will include driving up the number of public procurement contracts won by UK steel manufacturers, the lessons that can be learnt from other countries in the EU and beyond—
	Several hon. Members rose—

Nicholas Dakin: Minister!

Stephen Crabb: —and what more the Government can do to boost productivity and help steel manufacturers to cut production costs.

Nicholas Dakin: Minister!

Stephen Crabb: The UK’s steel industry is part of the foundation of many of the nation’s great, world-beating supply chains—

Nicholas Dakin: Minister!

Natascha Engel: Order. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way. Shouting “Minister!” from a sedentary position is not going to help anyone.
	Let me also say that Members who are included in a very long list of speakers and who make constant interventions will not be called. We shall not be able to fit everyone in as it is, but if the interventions are kept to a minimum, we may have a chance of getting a little way down the list.

Stephen Crabb: This is a very important debate, and loads of Members want to speak in it. I think that I have been quite generous with interventions, and I shall now bring my remarks to a close.
	As I was saying, the UK’s steel industry is part of the foundation of many of the nation’s great, world-beating supply chains: automotive, aerospace, construction and energy, to name just four. The Government therefore remain committed to a healthy and growing steel industry in the UK. That is essential if we are to increase productivity and thereby raise standards of living for everyone in the country. However, during what is an extremely difficult time for the UK steel industry, we must do as much as we can to support the families of those affected by these changes, as well as supporting the UK steel industry, here and abroad, so that it can compete on a level playing field.

Natascha Engel: Before I call the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell)—on whose speech a time limit will not be imposed—I must inform Members that there will be a time limit of four minutes for Back-Bench speeches. I hope that that will enable us to get everyone in.

Hannah Bardell: I am pleased that, following last month’s Backbench Business debate, we have a further opportunity today to discuss the challenges facing the steel industry in the United Kingdom. Let me say at the outset that SNP Members will support the motion.
	Since last month’s debate, more challenges have arisen than solutions have been implemented. The global pressures that triggered a series of recent announcements on job losses at UK steel plants have been apparent for a number of months and have been emerging for considerably longer, but the Government have been slow to act with our European partners. In the light of these announcements, the steel industry has been clear and united in its requests for Government assistance, but the Government have been flat-footed for too long. I welcome some of their very recent progress, but the timely delivery of what they have promised is key. I hope that today’s debate will offer them another opportunity to set out, in detail, the measures that they will take immediately to protect threatened jobs and support the continuing industrial production of steel in the UK, and also to provide a timeline for the delivery of that support.
	Last week, Tata Steel announced its intention to consult on the mothballing of its Dalzell—Members should note the pronunciation of that; I was glad to note that Conservative Members managed to pronounce it correctly—and Clydebridge facilities, with the potential loss of 270 Scottish jobs. Each one of those jobs supports a further three in the wider economy, which serves as a reminder that closure of the two facilities will be felt not just locally, but much further afield. I intend to allow my hon. Friends who represent the communities involved to speak at greater length about the impact of last week’s announcement, but let me just say this: if there is to be a future for the industrial production of steel in Scotland, the lights at those plants must not go out.
	The commitment from the SNP and the Scottish Government is clear. We will work relentlessly, and resolve to do everything in our power, to keep Dalzell and Clydebridge open. I am pleased, therefore, that the Scottish Government have assembled a cross-party, multi-agency Scottish steel taskforce, and that our First Minister has visited both sites affected. All members of the taskforce will work to explore a future for the facilities—and, unlike the Conservative party, I can say that that includes the trade unions.
	I also welcome the commitment from Tata Steel to work with the Scottish Government to find an alternative operator. The plants at Dalzell and Clydebridge are powerful assets, with a labour force who are highly experienced in the processing of steel for use in military products as well as in the offshore oil and gas industry. The economic climate may be challenging, but I am confident that my colleagues in the Scottish Government and their agencies will do everything in their power to protect jobs and see production continue.

Michelle Thomson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Hannah Bardell: I would like to make some progress.
	Wherever the endeavour to save these plants may lead and whatever the outcome, our first consideration will always be the affected communities. Every job lost and every single redundancy tells its own personal story. For the communities of Motherwell and Cambuslang, which have been home to the facilities for generations, the news could not have been more devastating, and the workers and families face a very anxious and uncertain time ahead. Modern apprentices starting their careers face losing the opportunity to learn a trade in an industrial setting. Workers who have dedicated 30 years and more to these plants face losing their livelihoods and a nation faces losing a key part of its industrial heritage. I am conscious that these emotions are being felt not just in Scotland, but across the communities of south Yorkshire, the west midlands and Scunthorpe, all of whom have been subject to similar announcements and job losses at steelworks. On behalf of my hon. Friends on the SNP Benches, I express our solidarity with those workers across the UK who have an uncertain future ahead of them.
	The primary challenge to Scottish, English, Welsh and, indeed, European steel is a common one. As the OECD has identified, excess global capacity is expected to widen to 645 million tonnes above demand this year. Much of that has been driven by rapidly expanding Chinese steel production. Although that production predominantly met domestic demand at the outset, since 2010 China has been a net exporter of steel. Since 2013 a near-collapse in domestic demand for steel in China has led to a dramatic increase in Chinese steel exports. Indeed, Chinese steel exports are likely to exceed 100 million tonnes this year. If we are to see a correction of global supply, it will be largely incumbent upon China to reduce capacity. In China’s case, that might need to be by as much as 30%, some way above its current target of a reduction of 80 million tonnes of overcapacity by 2017.

Simon Hoare: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hannah Bardell: No, as many Members wish to speak in the debate.
	European-produced steel is unable to compete with such alternatives. As an illustration, according to recent data from the Steel Index, European-produced domestic hot-rolled coil at €415 a tonne is at a €53 premium compared with export prices from China. The presence of excess Chinese steel in European markets requires urgent redress, and I welcome the attention paid by the European Commission to the issue over the past year. There is some evidence that the anti-dumping duties are having some success, and there may well be a case for further action. I urge the Government to participate fully with our European partners in co-ordinating what that further action might be. However, in this endeavour I would also encourage the Government to consider carefully the impact of further anti-dumping duties on the global price competitiveness of European-produced steel.
	I was pleased to note that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has belatedly recognised the importance of working with European partners to address the issues of dumping and overcapacity. Today’s press release from his Department triumphantly announces:
	“Business Secretary to put steel top of Brussels agenda.”
	While I would not wish to rain on the Secretary of State’s parade, I am sure that when he arrives in Brussels he will find the EU Commissioners quite well-versed, given that they have been taking action on these issues for over nine months. I had also hoped, given the impact on the Scottish steel industry, that the Secretary of State might accede to the request from the Scottish Government to be represented at the discussions in Europe today, and I am disappointed that the Scottish Government have once again been frozen out of fighting Scotland’s corner.

Kevan Jones: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I note that the Secretary of State has now left the Chamber. I might be an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy, but I thought there was a convention that a speaker should stay for at least the next two contributions before leaving the Chamber.

Natascha Engel: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the Secretary of State has just told me that he has popped out to do some media and is coming straight back again. [Interruption.] As I said, the hon. Gentleman is correct, but the Secretary of State approached the Chair on this, and I said it was fine, and there is a Minister listening. At the end of the day, it is the Secretary of State’s choice.

Kevan Jones: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it now convention that a—

Natascha Engel: Order. I think we have dealt with this. I call Hannah Bardell.

Hannah Bardell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not only is there disrespect in Europe; there is disrespect in this Chamber. Members on the SNP Benches and people across Scotland may well ask what of the much-lauded respect agenda.
	On Government support for the industry, we welcome the positive developments over the last week and welcome the Government’s commitment to the implementation of an energy compensation package to bring down the cost of energy to that enjoyed by rivals, the reduction of business rates in line with those of competitor countries, and more time to meet directives on emissions. I would, however, echo the note of caution from Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel, who told the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee yesterday that
	“time is not on our side”.
	The issues facing the industry in the UK are pressing and I would encourage the Government to outline today when they will bring forward promised measures to pre-empt any further damage to the UK industry or to jobs. These measures will, of course, be short-term support for the industry to weather what is a tumultuous period, but continuing industrial steel production in the UK in the long-term will not be ensured by a business rate cut here, a delayed emission deadline there or prolonged protectionism from the European Commission.
	The Clydebridge steelworks that has been designated for mothballing first opened in 1887 as a giant of industrial Scotland. The steel plates it made were used in many of the most famous ships ever built—the Lusitania, the Mauretania, the Queen Mary and the Queen Elizabeth. The Dalzell works can trace its history to the 1870s. Scotland once had a proud and distinguished industrial heart, but I fear that for much of the latter half of the 20th century Scotland’s industrial story became one of decline.
	This idea is encapsulated in a seminal hit—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen because I am making an interesting point. This idea is encapsulated in a seminal hit by one of Scotland’s favourite bands, The Proclaimers —if any Members do not know them, they should listen. “Bathgate no more”, goes the lyric, as the Leyland plant closed in 1986; “Linwood no more” as Hillman cars factory closed; “Methil no more” as the fabrication yards that assembled the North sea’s greatest rigs closed. My own grandfather spent a good part of his career at Leyland in Bathgate and I do not want a new generation of Scots to pen songs describing further decline in Scottish industry.
	For the time being, the economic powers that Scotland needs to reindustrialise for the 21st century remain with Westminster, but successive Westminster Governments of all colours do not boast a proud record on stewardship of Scotland’s industry. I implore the Government to work with the Scottish Government to enable the development of a coherent, visionary industrial strategy for Scotland. What a refreshing change it would be to be able to help our industry thrive and not just survive, to innovate, to compete and to succeed, rather than stepping in and picking up the pieces when the jobs are lost and the damage is done.
	I will conclude my comments the way I started them: by paying tribute to the workers, their families and the communities affected. We salute their resoluteness in this period of adversity. We stand with them in solidarity as they face uncertain and anxious times, and we on these Benches want to reassure them that the SNP Scottish Government will leave no stone unturned in seeking to keep Scotland’s steelworks open and Scottish steelworkers in jobs.

James Morris: Metal runs through the heart of the black country and the west midlands. On a personal note, my grandfather worked as a forger in the Halesowen steelworks after the second world war. He had an industrial accident there in 1947 and was not able to work again after that, so I know in the blood of my family the difficulties often faced by people in steel communities.
	Last Friday I took part in a midlands steel taskforce group, which had been set up by Beverley Neilsen, director of the Institute for Design and Economic Acceleration at Birmingham City university, following the collapse of Caparo into administration across the west midlands, and I was pleased to see that there was cross-party representation at that meeting, as well as representatives of business and local chambers of commerce.
	Caparo went into administration for complex reasons. Over a long period of time there have been financial difficulties in the Caparo group. It has been heavily debt-laden since a refinancing deal it did in 2008-09, so not all the Caparo problems are related to the issues of the global steel market. However, jobs are at risk in Cradley heath in my constituency and other areas of Sandwell and across the west midlands, and we need to do whatever we can to help these companies and those people whose jobs are at risk.
	At the midlands steel summit that I attended on Friday, we discussed a number of the immediate, short-term steps that we should consider in relation to Caparo.
	There was a strong argument for setting up a Caparo in administration task group to work with the administrators of the Caparo group. After speaking to the administrators on Friday, it became clear that there were a number of profitable, high-quality businesses in the Caparo group, in the high-tech, high-end engineering sector, that would be able to find buyers. I understand that the administrators have had about 45 representations about acquiring certain parts of the group.
	We also need to take action in relation to the impact of Caparo’s collapse into administration on the supply chain across the west midlands. I understand that some small and medium-sized companies were not expecting the group to go into administration and have been suffering cash-flow difficulties. We also need to identify as early as possible those companies that will be at risk, so that we can determine how their skilled workers might be able to find other work quickly. Manufacturing in the black country has been doing very well over the past two and a half years, and there is demand in the area for high-skilled workers, but we need to have a strategy in place around that. Steel plays an important part in the west midlands manufacturing supply chain, and there could be an impact on companies such as Somers Forge in my constituency.
	There is no easy solution to the present problems. We need to take short-term action in relation to Caparo, but we also need to take action on energy costs and Chinese dumping. There may be no easy solutions, but there are things that the Government are doing—and should continue to do—to mitigate the problems of the Caparo administration in the short term and to re-establish the steel industry and protect the supply chain in the west midlands in the long term.

Iain Wright: Like the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), I have a Caparo steel factory in my constituency. The 200 workers there are obviously facing troubled times, and it is vital that, as part of the wider steel strategy, we look into the issues affecting them.
	Yesterday, we on the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee held an evidence session on the state of the steel industry. I am grateful to all the expert witnesses who came along and gave their fantastic evidence. Let me start with the positives. It was welcome to hear the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) tell the Committee that she considered the UK steel industry to be of strategic importance and enormous value to British manufacturing. Her predecessors in that post would not have said that. I fear, however, that others in Government, including the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Business Secretary, do not necessarily feel the same way. Therein lies the problem. We need that strategic priority in the light of the challenges facing the industry.
	The UK steel industry is in grave crisis. All the expert witnesses yesterday said that they could not recall a more serious time for the survival of their industry. Since the summer, a fifth of the workforce in the UK steel industry have either lost their jobs or are at risk of doing so.
	The tragedy of job losses for the individual steelworkers, their families and their communities is immense, but the loss of the skills, the capability and the competitiveness in such a strategic industry will affect British manufacturing for decades. Gareth Stace, director of UK Steel, gave us a vivid description of the situation yesterday. He told us that the industry was like
	“a patient on the operating table. We are bleeding very quickly and unless it’s stopped very soon we are likely to die”.

Richard Fuller: On that point, has the hon. Gentleman been struck by the relative slowness of the European Union’s response to Chinese dumping, compared with the speed of the response of the United States?

Iain Wright: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and I will come to that in a moment. He is a fantastic member of the BIS Select Committee, and he was incredibly supportive yesterday.
	This is not necessarily a question of the Government waving a magic wand. Global forces are affecting the steel industry. I am not suggesting that the UK Government have a disproportionate influence over what is happening in the global steel industry, but there are things that they can do. The Minister rightly said that she saw steel as a strategic industry because it acts as a foundation for many other parts of the manufacturing value chain. I agree with her on that. A modern steel industry is at the heart of a dynamic and innovative economy.
	I would suggest that the role of the Government is to level the playing field for British-based steel makers and ensure that they do not face costs and pressures that our competitors do not face. The role of the Government is also to go out and bat for the British steel industry on the European and world stage. Alas, it emerged clearly from our Select Committee inquiry yesterday that, despite their warm words, the Government have been slow and reactive and that, despite their protestations, they have not prioritised the steel industry in a way that its strategic importance requires.
	The Government have been exposed as having been left baffled and battered by the forces affecting global steel. That is perhaps inevitable, given the scale and gravity of the challenge, but it is a challenge that the industry has been raising with Ministers for some time. Plant closures and the loss of jobs, steelmaking skills and capacity could have been lessened had the Government been more on the front foot and responded more swiftly.
	I have enormous respect for the Minister, but she sounded like Elvis Presley in the Committee yesterday when she told us that she wanted a little less conversation and a little more action, please. Her words were welcome, but it became abundantly clear that, in the main, words are all we have. Words are not going to save the British steel industry.
	At the steel summit on 16 October, we were provided with an excellent analysis of the state of the industry from its representatives. We were provided with a clear and achievable five-point plan on factors such as energy costs, business rates and local content in procurement projects. However, that analysis was nothing new. It has been known about for weeks and months, if not years. The Government were familiar with the asks from industry long before 16 October, so why was urgent action not taken sooner in such a strategic industry?
	The Minister’s insistence on a change in policy on voting in Europe on dumping is welcome, but why did industry tell us yesterday that we in the UK were out on a limb in Europe in not acting in a co-ordinated way on cheap Chinese imports? In response to the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), he will recall that the Select Committee was told yesterday that an astonishing 94% of all the cheap Chinese steel coming to Europe comes to Britain, at a time when our domestic industry is dying. We have put up the white flag for our steel industry in response to the Chinese red flag. That is not appropriate.
	We have been left in no doubt about the gravity of the situation. We may not even have reached the bottom of the job losses and plant closures. It is not too melodramatic to measure the survival of the British steel industry in weeks rather than decades. We do not have time to reflect or reassess; the Government have to move from warm words to action, and they have to do it now.

Andrew Percy: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright). I do not agree with the last 30 seconds of his speech, but otherwise I could not put a cigarette paper between him and me. I voted for him to be Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee because he knows how to do this. I apologise if I told anyone else that I was going to vote for them—I tend to tell everyone that—but I actually voted for him. I cannot disagree with the way in which he has just put the case for the UK steel industry. As I said in an earlier intervention, taking the politics out of this is the way to do it. There are things that the Government can do, and things that they cannot. In fairness to the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), she said the same thing. Not everything is in the hands of the UK Government, and the less shouting and screaming we hear from the sides and the more working together we can achieve, the better.
	That is not to say that people do not have a right to be angry; they do have that right. I represent a steel area, as do many hon. Members, and I understand the passion. A lot of people have contacted me in the past few days saying, “We’ve bailed out the banks. Why not the steel industry?” Do you know what? I cannot disagree with that. It is a strategic industry and it should be viewed by the Government in the same way as the banking industry is. I pay tribute to the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has said, time and again, that the steel industry is vital to this country and should be supported appropriately.
	I pay tribute to the workers at Scunthorpe, who do an amazing job producing the best steel in the world. I also pay tribute to the unions there, which have responded to this crisis in a sensible and measured way and worked with everyone involved. They deserve credit for that. But where are we at with Scunthorpe? We local Members of Parliament all know that we are in a pretty bad place, and we are all committed to doing everything we can.
	We have two prongs to our attack. The first involves supporting those who are affected by the announced and proposed job losses. I met the Minister the other night to put a couple of requests to her, and I shall put them on the record today. We welcome the £9 million that has been announced to support those who are affected. We wish we did not need it, but we welcome it. Our request in relation to that is that we want the support to be spent locally. We do not want outside providers coming in and giving training. We have excellent local colleges, and we have a local council which has a record of delivering through the regional growth fund. It delivered 800 jobs through a £10 million grant when we lost 1,000 jobs four years ago. We want a guarantee that funding can be used to support local small and medium-sized enterprises.
	The taskforce, which has been referenced by the Secretary of State, has also put a couple of important asks to the Minister. We know that an offshore wind revolution is approaching the Humber. Some of the skills that have been lost from the site can be used in the jobs that are coming. However, there is a gap between the number of those who will lose their jobs and the number of jobs that are expected in places such as the South Humber Gateway in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). We need support to ensure that the workers can make that transition, and support from the Government to encourage DONG Energy to move beyond its memorandum of understanding with Able.
	We need an acceleration in infrastructure projects locally. The North Killingholme flood project would be one that would help, as would bringing forward some of the offshore wind projects.

Andrew Stephenson: British steel is a quality product. My hon. Friend talks about bringing forward projects, but when I speak to companies in Pendle they say that they use British steel because they have concerns about the quality of imported steel. Does he share those concerns?

Andrew Percy: Absolutely. I am sorry that we do not have more time, because there is an awful lot more that I would like to say in this debate.
	My hon. Friend brings me to the second part of our asks, which is how we try to secure the long-term future of the site, because we in Scunthorpe cannot afford to lose it. Scunthorpe is a steel town, and, like all local MPs, I want it to remain a steel town. There are things on which we need to take action. Chinese dumping and the quality of Chinese steel are mentioned repeatedly in that regard. It is true that, before this crisis and following pressure from all parts of the House, the Government had taken action in Europe, and we welcomed that. The carbon floor price was a mistake; my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes and I voted against it. I agree with those who say that we need to bring forward the compensation scheme. I also have sympathy with those who say let us pay it and damn EU approval.
	It is worth noting that it is this Government who secured new EU procurement rules that make it easier to get local content. We want the HS2 contracts to go to Scunthorpe, new projects being brought forward and a clear message from this Government that they will do everything they can—in fairness, we have had that message—that, under these new rules, UK content will be used as much as possible. We have been having useful meetings with the Cabinet Office Minister on this, and we will keep on meeting, as there are other things that need to be done around business rates. We need an enterprise zone for part of the site at Scunthorpe. It is a huge site and it is underutilised, and other things can be done there to secure more business. I wish that I could say more, but, unfortunately, I am out of time.

Tom Blenkinsop: I pay tribute to Roy Rickhuss, General Secretary of Community trade union, who is in the Public Gallery. He has led steelworkers through a very dark time with dignity, great class and humour. Also in the Public Gallery are more than 40 steelworkers from across the UK, who have come here today to talk to MPs and to demonstrate their desire to see a British steel industry.
	My first small point is about Chinese dumping. Yes, it is a problem, and the quality of the steel that is being dumped is poor both environmentally and on health and safety grounds, but it will get better. We can stop it now; there are provisions within the European Union on which we should now act, but the quality of Chinese steel will get better, and what do we do then? The real issue is whether we want a British steel industry. It is more about political will than it is about any organisation, institution or legislation. Do we want a British steel industry? British steel is as British as roast beef or the Union Jack; it is fundamental to our national identity.
	Let us look at steel in relation to our country’s history, how we define ourselves as defenders of democracy and how we defeated fascism. It was steelworks up and down the length and breadth of this country that ensured that we could arm ourselves in those struggles. That is a story that we heard not from the men on site, but, in large part, from the women working in the industry. It is an often untold story. The arguments about the carbon floor price, energy prices, Chinese dumping and the current exchange rate are all well versed and well made.
	What I wish to focus on in Teesside is the future. We are an area that can attract not just steel but other energy-intensive industries. If the Government act in the immediate and medium term to bring about those five industrial asks to defend a British steel industry, we in Teesside can buoy that up even more.

Stephen Kinnock: On those five asks, particularly around anti-dumping and state aid, does my hon. Friend agree that the principle that should now be applied is shoot first and answer questions later? Is it not time that we started looking at unilateral action, as we are now dealing with a crisis.

Tom Blenkinsop: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment and for reiterating a quote from the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), who made exactly that point in a previous debate.
	Before I get to business rates, the issues around Teesside and why SSI no longer exists, let me say that, in Teesside, we are next to the Durham coalfield, under the North sea, which could be gasified. Shale gas is coming to this country from America only because America does not have the capacity to retain it. America will stop exporting gas to this nation in five to 10 years, so we need our own gas supply. When we set that up, we need to sequestrate that gas to provide cheap energy and to remove the threat from green taxes. If we do that, we would create a renaissance of industry on Teesside and across the UK.
	In relation to taxation on industry—quite apart from CPF, which is a British tax inflicted on its own industry—there are 17 English and Welsh sites that have business rate values of more than £1 million, 15 of which have outstanding rate relief applications still not answered. Since 2010, business rates for the steel sector have increased by 19% in England. Not one steel site has seen any rate relief yet. Let us compare that to the retail sector, which, in this financial year alone, has received £1.8 billion in rate relief. That is madness. That rate relief is paid for by the taxes of a steel industry that we are killing via the CFP and the lack of relief in business rates.
	On the important matter of SSI, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions. How long has the insolvency unit been monitoring what was happening in Redcar? She disclosed to me on the day of liquidation that it had been monitoring the situation for “many months”. Indeed, it anticipated that SSI, alongside other companies dealing with long products such as Caparo and Tata in Dalzell, Clydebridge and Scunthorpe, would “pop” in November. What were the red flags? Were they pensions, the lack of student loans being paid, liabilities—[Interruption.] Exactly, the Minister knew all of this, but when? At what point did it all start? What we need to know is whether it could have been pre-empted.

Martin Vickers: Many of the points relating to Scunthorpe have already been concisely covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). May I slightly widen the debate to include the effect on the northern Lincolnshire economy as a whole? I represent a neighbouring constituency, and many of my constituents work in Scunthorpe. Many also work in ports and logistics, which is an area that is heavily influenced by what happens in Scunthorpe. Indeed Tata Steel has a site on Immingham docks, which is the largest port in the country.
	I welcome the £9 million that has been announced by the Government. I say to the Minister that some of my constituents, whom I met at the weekend, were reassured by the interviews that she gave last Friday on the BBC in which she made a clear and welcome commitment to the continuation of the steel industry in Scunthorpe.
	I have spent all of my life living in the Grimsby-Cleethorpes area. I witnessed the decline of the deep-sea fishing industry, and saw what the loss of a staple industry can do to a local community. It took a whole generation for the area to go anywhere near to recovery. We need to learn from the mistakes that were made not just in the Grimsby area but in other parts of the country, and provide the necessary support. I know that Ministers are determined to do that. We have had talk of strategies, and strategies are fine, but world conditions can change rather dramatically. We can have as many strategies as we like, but what we need is hard and fast commitment from Government.
	A taskforce set up under the able leadership of Councillor Redfern, leader of North Lincolnshire Council, has made some clear asks that were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole relating to enterprise zones and skills training in the burgeoning offshore industry. I echo his words about the Able UK site at Killingholme, where DONG Energy has a memorandum of understanding signed with Able. The Government did a great deal to support the establishment and give permission for the Able development, and a little help and support, or perhaps just negotiations, might help to seal the deal and give a great boost to the area.
	There has to be a balance with environment taxes. It is nice and cuddly to be able to say that we are in favour of being green and that all sounds fine, but heavy industries such as the steel industry and the oil refineries in my constituency rely heavily on economically priced energy. We need to achieve a balance.
	The Chancellor has repeatedly mentioned the importance of the northern Lincolnshire economy as part of the northern powerhouse, but many in the area are still sceptical about that. Now is a real opportunity to show that the northern powerhouse, and the part that northern Lincolnshire can play in it, means something. We want real, tangible benefits. The community will struggle for some time to recover, so positive action, linked to the northern powerhouse initiative, can play a major part in the regeneration of the area and in supplying the jobs that are so urgently needed.

Sarah Champion: I have been an MP for only three years, but it is depressingly familiar to stand in this Chamber following the announcement of another steel plant closure, with thousands more families facing an uncertain future and the heart of yet another steel-producing community being ripped out.
	Rotherham steel shows the best of British industry. It is world leading, innovative and dynamic. Steel is vital to my constituency and we are facing 720 imminent job losses. Our local economy is hugely reliant on steel. If this Government allow the industry to continue to decline, not only those who are employed in steel will feel the impact: local businesses, large and small, will be hit hard. Apprentices will lose their careers and young people will lose their hope of a future in steel. Ministers need to know that Rotherham is still feeling the effects of the loss of coal mining in the 1980s. The town was built on coal and steel and the loss of coal hurt us severely and deeply. The impact of the loss of steel would be incalculable.
	It is deeply ironic that the advanced manufacturing park where the steel summit was held is built on the site of the battle of Orgreave, which vividly demonstrates our ability, hard work, durability and will to succeed despite what the Government throw at us. To succeed, we must be given the tools. Many commentators, including the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), have compared the lack of support for steel to the decision to bail out the banks in the wake of the global financial crisis. Although I accept the intention, the comparison is flawed. Steel does not need bailing out. It simply needs to be allowed to compete on a level playing field.
	Our steel industry is world leading, but it is hamstrung by a Government who appear unconcerned by its present and unwilling to support its future. Parliamentary colleagues and I have repeatedly called for the Government to act to address the high energy costs that leave British steel unable to compete with European neighbours, but what we receive, time and again, are warm words.

Andrew Percy: May I clarify that I am not suggesting that steel requires a bail out? My key point is that the steel industry should be seen as strategically as important as the banking sector to the future of this country.

Sarah Champion: I completely agree, and I understood the hon. Gentleman’s intention fully.
	What is needed now is abundantly clear. The Government might be unable to control the pressures of the global economy, but there are steps that they could and should take to assist the industry in weathering the current crisis. The Government must take action on business rates, which penalise investment in plants and in the technology the industry needs to survive. They must immediately introduce a compensation scheme for high-energy users to ensure that Britain can compete with the world. They must reform energy tariffs. They must commit to favouring British steel in procurement. It is obscene that the Government can decry the impact of cheap foreign steel while turning to foreign suppliers for infrastructure projects. Projects such as HS2 should be using British steel and the skills and expertise our industry can provide.
	The Government must also work productively with our European neighbours to enact anti-dumping measures to protect British steel from cheap subsidised imports. The recent steel summit was an opportunity to move from words to action and the message to the Government from MPs, the industry and the unions was clear: we need action and we need it now. That is what colleagues are repeatedly saying in this Chamber. What did we receive? Yet again, warm empty words.
	The Government must have an industrial strategy that places steel at its heart, but they seemingly have no industrial strategy at all. The only conclusion it is possible to draw is that the Government do not care about steel, do not care about industry and do not care about the north. I am sad to say that it feels like we are back in the 1980s with a Tory Government who are wilfully ignorant and insensitive to the needs of industry. Once again, it is my constituents who will be left alone to pick up the pieces.

David Mowat: Unlike the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), I do not have a direct constituency interest in the steel industry, but 25 years ago I visited the blast furnace at Port Talbot, where I was working. It is one of those memories that stays with you, seeing a blast furnace in full flight. It is clearly a tragedy that the blast furnace at Redcar will no longer operate.
	I wish to focus on energy prices. We have heard about Chinese dumping, business rates and so on and, of course, Chinese dumping is a major issue. However, as far as I am aware countries such as Germany and France are not closing blast furnaces or announcing major job losses. One reason is that the steel industry in Germany and France pays 4p per unit for electricity and the steel industry in this country pays 9p per unit for electricity. What matters is how big a proportion of the costs that difference makes up. No matter how efficient the guys watching us from the Gallery are, overcoming such an impediment is impossible. Energy makes up 15% to 20% of steel input costs, so we can work out that the cost in the end is something like 5% of the differential on the product. That is the margin that places such as SSI make on their product, and that is enough to make a difference.
	We have an example of what happens when we do not pay attention to these things. Ten years ago, the aluminium industry in our country had three major primary smelters. That is now decreased by 90% and there is only one left, which is in Scotland. It is only left because it has its own hydropower and therefore has no need to deal with the electricity issues. Not only have we seen the demise of aluminium and steel, but this is true also across what we call the foundation industries, including ceramics and chemicals. Chemicals are a big industry and, unless we act on energy prices, we will be in the Chamber discussing chemical plant closures. The industries employ about 900,000 people and I make the point to those on both Front Benches that in this place we have Ministers responsible for banking, for digital, for farming and for sport, but we do not have a Minister responsible for the foundation industries. Perhaps we should.
	I shall return to climate change. When I intervened on the shadow Secretary of State, she immediately closed the point down by saying that we have to be aware of climate change issues. That is true, but we cannot be aware unilaterally. No other country in the world has signed up for an 80% reduction by 2050—nobody has done it. It may be that we are right—that we are the only country in the world that will fix our 1.5% of global emissions—but the cost is the stock stuff that we are talking about now, and we all need to be aware of that. As I said in an intervention, when this issue is discussed in Parliament the Labour party and the Scottish National party always take the side of going further and faster on green stuff. Even in the Chamber this week, there were two examples of what I would describe as virtue signalling on this issue by Opposition Members, saying how green they are compared with the guys over here on the Government Benches. That is because we understand the impact of such measures, and we know that unless we act to close that energy price differential, we will be here discussing more industries in future.

Adrian Bailey: I was elected to the House in a by-election in November 2000. Within a week, I became vice-chair of the all-party cast metals group, and subsequently the cast metals and steel group. Since then, I have campaigned with Members from all parties in the House and Governments of different political persuasions on the issues surrounding the steel industry. I resent some of the Secretary of State’s opening remarks, which implied that there was political partisanship. I know that across all the parties of this House there has been a unified approach on issues surrounding the steel industry, and never before has that been more necessary.
	I have Caparo headquartered in my constituency together with several of the constituent companies. It employs 1,700 people in the black country—800 in the immediate locality of my constituency—and manufactures a range of products from girders, barriers, portal frames and forged components to heavy rolled bar, sheet and profiles. When Caparo went into administration on Monday 19 October it did not just affect the jobs at that company; a comprehensive network of small businesses that were dependent on Caparo looked with great trepidation to their future. It is part of a complex supply chain in the midlands and many companies and employees within those companies are affected by it. If we consider a huge range of products—computers, white goods, transport, cars, aeronautics, iPads and so on—the chances are that at least one of their components has been made by the highly specialised small producers in the black country. What is worrying is that those companies could not have anticipated the closure of Caparo, and the threat to them is even greater because they have not had the chance to diversify, as happened when MG Rover collapsed 15 or so years ago.
	I commend the work of the West Midlands Economic Forum and of the Midlands Steel Taskforce, which the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) referred to. It is making recommendations to deal with this problem and I shall highlight some of those which I feel are absolutely vital. The first action needed is to set up a transition fund, as was set up under the Labour Government when Rover went, to deal with the immediate impact on the small businesses that are tied in with Caparo. I understand that one issue is that PricewaterhouseCoopers is demanding payment within 15 days; 60 days is the norm in the industry. That could potentially cause enormous cash-flow problems to a whole range of small businesses, which they need help to resolve.
	The second action needed is on skills. We have almost a unique blend of manufacturing skills in the area. We will lose not only the contribution to the economy, but the contribution that those skills could make in the future. We need help to ensure that people, particularly young people, have comparable jobs to sustain their skills. We need help with specialised imports; many products cannot be imported from China. The quality of goods locally must be sustained, and there will need to be some sort of financial support in order to keep that capacity there for the future.

Natascha Engel: Before I call the next speaker, I am going to drop the time limit down to three minutes. That way, we will be sure to get everybody in.

Tom Pursglove: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey). I am pleased that the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is in her place this afternoon, but I was incredibly disappointed that not once did she talk about working together on this issue, which is so important to our constituents. I will say why it is important. Corby has a rich steel history and 600 people are still employed there, working in the steel sector at the Tata plant. I know that they are all concerned by the events of recent weeks.

Peter Bone: It is not only, of course, my hon. Friend’s constituents but the whole of north Northamptonshire. My constituents and my industries are wrapped up with the steel industry in Corby. It goes much wider than any one constituency.

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I know that his Wellingborough constituents are also very concerned about what they are seeing day in, day out on the television.
	Historically, since my election to the House, there has been a lot of cross-party support on this issue, but no one would know that based on today’s debate. Watching this from afar, one would not know that there is that cross-party support. That is very disappointing, because both sides of the House acknowledge how necessary it is to provide assistance to the steel industry at this incredibly difficult time.
	It is important to thank both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is in her place this afternoon, for their hard work and their interest. They should be given much credit for making themselves available to talk to Members on both sides of the House about their concerns and the issues facing their constituencies, and for not shying away from this. They have done so much more than many Ministers who have gone before them and that has made a positive and significant difference to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is in Brussels today, to discuss the state of the steel industry and the unfair practices that we are seeing, particularly through Chinese dumping. At those discussions, I urge him to stress the need for the protections enshrined in international rules to be deployed to the fullest possible extent.

Peter Bone: Can my hon. Friend answer this specific question? If the EU says no, should we go ahead and do it anyway?

Tom Pursglove: My hon. Friend knows that I am sympathetic to that point of view. I know that Ministers are concerned about that. For me personally, one of the easiest solutions is to get out the European Union; that would be a solution for that particular point. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may shout me down; they quite often moan about the European Union but do not say very much about how we should put things right.
	Some key issues must be tackled before it is simply too late. One is the way that business rates are calculated. Rates are calculated not only on the basis of the size of the site but on new investment in machinery and equipment on the site. As I stated in the Backbench Business debate in September, the UK prides itself on innovation in business and Ministers maintain that they want Britain to be the best place in the world to start and grow a business. As local MPs, we see cutting-edge innovation week in, week out, with British business at the forefront of international innovation. I therefore find it impossible to understand why industries such as steel are penalised through the business rate system, thereby disincentivising investment and pushing up costs. It makes no sense to me, but I know that it makes even less sense to the Tata executives sat around the boardroom table in India.
	On energy costs, we need to be mindful of the impact that green taxes and levies have on businesses. There is quite often a clamour to do more on the climate change agenda. I understand that people are passionate about that, but we need to be mindful of the impact that has on the costs attached to doing business.
	At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister alluded to the energy compensation package. Will the Minister say a little bit more about that? That compensation is very important. I entirely support efforts to implement the full package as quickly as possible. At the steel summit she stated that there were delays at the European level. Will she identify exactly where we are at on that point as of today?
	I want to mention buying British. I have asked Ministers a lot of questions about that in the past few weeks, across Government. We have a unique opportunity to try and use British steel in key infrastructure projects that are coming forward—on HS2, on fracking, on Crossrail. We should seize those opportunities—make the most of them, use British products where we can. It is incredibly important. That is another reason why I support the charter for sustainable British steel. We should see that adopted across Government, across local government and across public sector procurement more generally.
	My constituents tell me week in, week out that they are sick to death of politicians bickering rather than sitting down and finding solutions to the challenges facing our great country. The debate around the future of the steel industry, as I said earlier, in large part has been carried out with good—

Natascha Engel: Order.

Jessica Morden: Like other hon. Members, this morning I met steelworkers from my constituency and officials from Community union. No Member who meets any constituent affected by this situation can be in any doubt about its gravity or the scale of the crisis. As speaker after speaker will say here today, this is a critical time for steel; we feel that our industry is on the edge.
	Quite rightly, in the numerous debates and urgent questions we have had over the past few weeks, the focus has been on the devastating impact on Redcar, Dalzell, Clydebridge and Scunthorpe. In my constituency, we want to convey our solidarity with the steelworkers and their families, communities and trade unions in what is an unbearably difficult time. Steelworkers in my constituency are feeling it too. Nine weeks ago, Tata announced that it was mothballing the hot strip mill in Llanwern, the cold mill and one of the pickle lines, and on the remaining pickle line the tonnage would be reduced. The effect of the mothballing is that 175 contractor roles will end this week, and 100 Tata Steel employees will be redeployed to Port Talbot and other south-east Wales sites.
	This is the third time that the hot strip mill has been mothballed in six years, but the crucial difference this time is that we do not know when it will open again. Llanwern is now Tata’s flex plant, with the mills coming on and off line depending on market conditions, leaving local workers, especially contractors, feeling the pain. The dynamics of the market are plain to see.
	The Secretary of State for Wales talked about the global challenges, but we need the Government to act where they can. The shadow Secretary of State referred to the tsunami of Chinese steel imports. For Llanwern, action on energy costs is crucial; it is particularly affected by those costs because it takes energy straight from the grid. Llanwern has also been affected by action taken in the United States in defence of its steel market. We have talked also about the action in Italy. We need to talk too about what we can do to protect our own industry in our constituencies.
	Nearly two weeks on from the steel summit, what action have we had on energy costs and on major construction projects? Electrification will run through my constituency, and we hope that UK steel will be involved. I say to the Government: please act now; please do not wait. In debates like these, we always talk about the sacrifices that steelworkers have had to make over their terms and conditions during difficult times for their companies. They need the Government to act now, to be pro-active and to have an industrial strategy to help steel in the future.

David Davies: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), not least because when I left school I started work at British Steel in her constituency. I have to declare an interest as a British Steel pension-holder. I would like to leave everyone with the impression that I was manfully firing a blast furnace, but I was actually a junior filing clerk.
	I feel very strongly about this issue and about this industry, which employs so many people in Monmouthshire. We all now accept that there is a problem throughout the world—a huge glut in steel caused by falling demand and an increase in production from China. There are things that the Government can do, and I believe that they are taking the right steps. I am delighted with the idea of the Government’s using British steel as far as possible—not bending or breaking the rules, but changing them so that we can buy our own steel, in projects such as High Speed 2 and in industries such as fracking. That will be very important.
	I was glad to hear words in support of the industry from across the Floor because we all have a responsibility in this matter. It is no good blaming the Government for everything; Opposition Members have to be able to challenge themselves and some of their colleagues, who are opposed to fracking on rather spurious green grounds. They should challenge those who say that we should always support everything that the European Union does, even when it makes it difficult for us to get around some of the state-aid rules.
	Most importantly—this point has been made by Back Benchers in all parts of the House—we need to do something about the energy crisis. It is no good blaming the Government for that because the whole drive to push up energy prices started with Labour Members, who became persuaded, like so many others, by this idea of global warning. I wish that I had 10 or 15 minutes to outline some of the obvious falsehoods that are propagated around that issue. Suffice it to say that manmade carbon emissions are about 30 gigatons a year out of a total of 700 gigatons that arise naturally. Carbon dioxide is in natural gas, and only about 5% of it comes from man. Of that 5%, only 2% comes from the UK—a tiny fraction of the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
	There has been no warming—no increase in the temperature—of this planet for the last 16 years, despite all the CO2 that has been pushed into the atmosphere. None of the scientists can explain that; they say that the pause is caused by volcanoes, they blame other kinds of gases or they say that there is a natural pause, as
	Jim Skea did. The reality is that there is no global warming at the moment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change accepts that.
	Why on earth, then, are we levying all these taxes on our industries? I support the Government’s coming up with a compensation scheme and freezing the carbon floor price, but I have a much better idea, which I ask Members in all parties to think about: scrap the carbon taxes. There is no point in having them if the Chinese do not have them and when we are generating only a tiny amount of CO2. Scrap the whole lot and we will not need a compensation scheme. Allow our steel industry to compete on an equal basis with everyone else. It is not the global climate that we need to worry about; it is the economic climate.

Angela Smith: I begin my contribution by way of reference to the three HMS Sheffields, two of which served in conflict. The first saw service in world war two, and the second was a guided missile destroyer which was badly hit in the Falklands war. What all three Sheffields had in common, apart from their name, was the use in their construction of stainless steel fixtures and fittings made in Sheffield. It is easy to see why those ships all carried the nickname “the Shiny Sheff”.
	The point of mentioning the Sheffields today is not to indulge in a nostalgic eulogy to naval ships long gone. Rather, it is to draw attention to what I think is the most powerful case for maintaining a steel capability in the UK—namely, that the integrity of our defence demands it. Sheffield steel engineering continues to play a key role in maintaining our defences. Forgemasters provides high-strength steel grades for the Royal Navy and has provided critical components for defence applications, including valves for the Astute class of nuclear submarines. It is not only Sheffield that plays a key role. We know of the potential contribution to the construction of the Trident submarines by the two steel plants under threat in Scotland. We also know that a high proportion of the steel required by BAE Systems is sourced from Tata at Scunthorpe.
	We could do more. BAE Systems considers that UK steel plays an important part in its supply chain but has made it clear that UK steel providers do not manufacture the range of steels needed by the company, due to the complex demands of its manufacturing specifications. That tells us a great deal about how far the steel capability in this country has been hollowed out.

Sarah Champion: My hon. Friend makes superb points about specialism, but does she think that the Government recognise that this is a modern, forward-looking industry?

Angela Smith: It is a very modern, efficient industry, and no, I do not think that the Government recognise that at all.
	On its own, the hollowing out of our steel capability utterly justifies the demand for a proper industrial strategy. The alternative is to stand idly by while one of our oldest industries withers away and dies. That would be negligent and reckless—negligent because steel making in the UK has one of the most dedicated and skilled work forces in the world, and reckless because we need a strong UK steel capability for the sake of our defence and security.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend talks about the defence supply chain. Could she talk about the supply chain in other manufacturing sectors, particularly aerospace, automotives and offshore wind? We discussed all that in the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and I am concerned that the third working group on public procurement is not looking at the alignment of supply chains. What does my hon. Friend think about that?

Angela Smith: Indeed. Tata speciality steel is headquartered in my constituency and plays a major part in providing components for the aerospace industry. It would not exist today if it were not for the work done by the Labour Government in 2009-10, and I pay tribute to Lord Mandelson for that.
	It is important to have the capability not just for the sake of our defence and security and not just because it is good for our GDP, but because we surely would not want to see our defence industry dependent for a range of its key components on steel sourced from foreign shores. That is the important point. I support the five demands laid out by UK Steel and by Community, but the Government’s response has generally been warm words and frequent reference to the law of the free market. That is not good enough.
	We need to place those five demands in the context of the two strategic arguments that underpin the case for Government intervention to secure the future of the industry. First, our steel industry is one of the foundations of manufacturing. It has a critical part to play in the job of rebalancing our economy. If we want the march of the makers, we need a steel capability—it is as simple as that. Secondly, we need to maintain and develop our UK steel capability in the best interests of UK defence and security. BAE Systems wants to use UK steel—make it possible for it to use more UK steel.
	I hope I have managed to convey a clear sense of the second strategic argument, and I hope the Minister will be persuaded that the Government need to act sooner rather than later to deliver the stability needed for one of our oldest and most important manufacturing resources.

Andy McDonald: I speak as somebody from Middlesbrough, and at the last time of counting, 33% of the workforce at Redcar hailed from my constituency. I have no reason to believe that the figures are much different today.
	We need an inquiry into the collapse of SSI. I echo the demand from my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), who has done a sterling job in her fight for her constituents. We also need an inquiry into whether the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is fit for purpose. I think it has been sadly lacking in many respects. The bottom line is that this Government could have acted in Redcar and they did not. The coke business was viable and it is an outrage that PWC was not directed to ensure that that business was sustained. That coke could have been made. There was a ready-made market for it. That would have put electricity into the national grid. It was a viable business, and people on Teesside cannot understand why the Government sat back and allowed it to fail. It is a very Conservative failure, and death by neglect—they sat back and did nothing at all. We have heard a lot of blether today about what the Government cannot do. What we want to hear is what the Government can do and what they will get on with.

Tom Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend will be aware that for the sake of £17 million, the third grade required in the three grades for sellable foundry coke could have made that business viable. The often-quoted £2 million cost was actually about South Bank coke ovens, which was already designated for mothballing in April 2016. Redcar coke ovens was profitable and viable, which is why SSI tried to re-form itself as a new company, and Kirby Adams, a former CEO of Tata Europe, tried himself to set it up as a business.

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend and neighbour makes a very good point. We have heard throughout that the coal in situ was not suitable for purposes other than the blast furnace. Other coal could have been brought in. Hargreaves was able and available for that and was not embraced. Any sensible Government would have grabbed that opportunity with both hands, but they did not do so.

Anna Turley: A lot of the conversation has been about the price of steel as the reason why SSI went under. We are talking about coke and, as my hon. Friend said, there were companies in Germany willing to buy all the foundry coke that we could make in those coke ovens. It was selling at over £500 a tonne, compared with the £100 a tonne cost for making it. That was a profitable business which could have kept the coke ovens going, it could have funded a proper mothballing of the blast furnace, and we could still have steelmaking on Teesside.

Andy McDonald: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That would have been the basis for keeping that coke oven going and mothballing that blast furnace. It is no good the Minister coming to me after the event and telling me in hushed tones that she wishes she had mothballed the site. That will not do at all.
	We hear about bringing forward compensation packages. When the Prime Minister was at the Dispatch Box today, it seemed to be a revelation to him that suddenly we were talking about bringing forward a compensation package. We have been talking about it in the Chamber for months. It is as if the scales have been removed from his eyes. The hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who is no longer in his place, hit the point exactly when he spoke about the role of Chinese steel and the fact that it is produced at less than cost. We have now heard from the Prime Minister that he discussed it with the President of China. We want to know what action is going to flow from that discussion. There is no point just bringing it up. We want to know what is going to happen. If 94% of the steel coming to Europe is dumped on these shores, it is up to this Government to take action about it and not sit on their hands.
	I went to Italy last Friday to speak to the representatives of FIOM from the Ilva plant in Taranto in southern Italy. What a difference from a Government who not only identify the strategic importance of the industry, but are prepared and have the political will to do something about it. They recognise the social impact of thousands of people losing their jobs and they will do anything to stop that happening. That is what we want to see in this country. In Italy there are solidarity laws so that people are not laid off. The bankruptcy laws were changed. In Teesside we saw creditors go to the wall—Hargreaves was struggling, as were personnel agencies, engineers, hairdressers and so on. In Italy, bankruptcy laws were changed so that such firms got tax relief on future businesses. That is what I call an active policy.
	For the Minister to say that the Government could not embrace state aid is utter nonsense, and she knows it. Regional aid and environmental aid could have been embraced with no difficulty; that was done for carbon capture and storage at the Florange plant in France. We on Teesside are sitting on a wonderful opportunity that this Government are letting slip through their hands. We need an active industrial strategy. We need a Government who will access the European globalisation adjustment fund—they have not even made an application to it. We need a BIS Department that is scouring the world in advance, not saying, “We were caught out at the last minute”. The Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse openly admits that he had known for ages about the problems. The Department should have been getting on with it, scouring the world, making sure it had the capacity in financial and engineering terms to respond properly.

Marion Fellows: I ask the Government to remember that there are still two steel plants in Scotland, one of which, Dalzell, is in my constituency, near my constituency office. It predates Ravenscraig and has been involved in steelmaking since 1872. Steel has been at the heart of my constituency since then.
	I reiterate those facts because my constituency seems not to have figured in the minds of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Prime Minister. On Tuesday 20 October, I had occasion to remind the Secretary of State that Tata Steel’s announcement affected plants at Dalzell works and Clydebridge. On the following day at Prime Minister’s questions, in a reply to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom stated:
	“I am always happy to meet him and neighbouring MPs again.”—[Official Report, 21 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 956.]
	On the strength of that reply, I wrote to the Prime Minister requesting a meeting. I received a reply from No. 10 yesterday declining such a meeting. My constituents deserve better from the Government.
	In the past, the Prime Minister has said repeatedly that my constituents would be better together with the rest of the United Kingdom. They did not believe him on 18 September last year, when a majority of them voted yes—that Scotland should be an independent country. They certainly do not believe that we are better together now, because we clearly have an England-first and a Scotland-nowhere Parliament on non-devolved issues. The Prime Minister did not even raise the question of steel at the European Council and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills does not remember where Scottish plants are. He refused to give leave to Fergus Ewing, the Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism in the Scottish Government, to take part in the talks on steel making that are taking place today.
	The Secretary of State for Scotland has personally assured me that he will press his ministerial colleagues to ensure that the energy costs rebate will be expedited as soon as they are agreed by Europe. I wish him well in his endeavours, although he might first have to explain to them where Scotland is. I am a member of the Scottish taskforce set up by the First Minister immediately after the Tata announcement. She has said that she will leave no stone unturned to secure a future for Scottish steel—oh for the same commitment from the Tory Government in respect of the UK. They seem to see roadblocks to action everywhere.
	Since the Tata announcement on the sale of the long products division, the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise have been in constant contact with the company—

Natascha Engel: Order. I call Anna Turley.

Anna Turley: It feels tragic to speak in this debate on the future of the steel industry because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said in her introductory comments, our steel industry has gone—175 years of proud history and heritage that built the world, from bridges to stadiums to buildings of great note, has gone. That future is no more. That is the tragedy of which all hon. Members are aware.
	The human tragedy remains. We have 3,000 people out of work and expect another 3,000 in the supply chain to go. I want to bring attention to that so that, first, it can be prevented from happening in any other constituency. I want to talk about the scale of what we are trying to deal with, the implications and the outstanding issues, and about the despair, anger and chaos that reigns in Redcar and Teesside.
	As I have said, the coke ovens and the blast furnace are gone. John, who works there at the moment—he is one of the skeleton staff who are there to try to wind it down—tells me that the coke ovens are cooling rapidly, and that the brickwork is warping beyond good use ever again. He tells me that steel and coke making are at an end for ever.

Andy McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolutely criminal act of industrial vandalism to let those coke ovens collapse when that was entirely and utterly avoidable?

Anna Turley: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The blast furnace and the coke ovens are national assets. They are part of British industry and manufacturing, and they are strategically important to our economy. They could and should have been preserved.
	I want to talk briefly about two outstanding issues that are causing a great deal of concern in my constituency. The first is the training that has not arrived. We were promised £80 million, but it turns out to be £50 million when we take out redundancy and the statutory entitlement that the workforce should have had. That training is not coming through. We were told that a local taskforce would have control—I was pleased to be invited to sit on it—but the reality is that decisions are being made by officials. I understand that we are waiting for a decision from the Secretary of State to clear that money and send it.

Bill Cash: The hon. Lady will know that the German Government provided subsidies for the training of employees, including steelworkers, to the value of €5.7 billion in 2013.

Anna Turley: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We should look at how the Germans support and respect industry and manufacturing.

Bill Cash: They were allowed to do that by the EU.

Anna Turley: Absolutely. If they do it, why can’t we? I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. We should also look at how the Germans support industry throughout their education system. He makes an important point.
	The training is not coming through and plenty of people are coming to me—I have a huge postbag from people who are not accessing the training and support that they need. For example, Tom, an apprentice who came to my surgery at the weekend, has been an apprentice at SSI for three years and four months. He wants to continue and finish his apprenticeship and has worked very hard on it. He was told by a Department for Work and Pensions official that he should get a job in a bar or in retail.

Sue Hayman: I am being contacted by young people in my constituency who are finishing their apprenticeships, and who are concerned about accepting job offers from Tata Steel. Other young people are asking me for reassurance about starting apprenticeships in engineering and manufacturing, because they see no commitment from the Government to industry in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is deeply concerning at a time when we have a national shortage of engineering and manufacturing skills?

Anna Turley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great tragedies of this situation is the fact that 50 apprentices were due to start on the day that SSI paused production. Steel is a viable industry with a bright future, so engineering is exactly the sort of field we should be encouraging our young people into. The Government should be giving them confidence that they have an industrial manufacturing policy that will support their future.
	An hon. Friend drew attention earlier to Lord Heseltine’s recent comment that now is a good time to lose one’s job. That was a grave insult to my constituents and all those who have lost their jobs in steelmaking, but I think that another comment he made was more profound. He said that we should not be supporting yesterday’s industries. That drove to my heart exactly how people on the Conservative Benches view the steel industry: yesterday’s industry. I totally disagree. It is an industry with a bright future. It should be a foundation industry for so many of the highly skilled manufacturing jobs that we want to create. Frankly, I wish we could give more reassurance to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman).
	I want to mention a couple of people who have contacted me about the trouble they have had with their training. Karl told me that he could not access heavy goods vehicle training because he was told that it is not currently a barrier to him getting work. I do not understand that. Dane, who is an electrical engineer, told me that he could have a course funded only if he had a job offer to go with it. There are a raft of problems that I am deeply concerned about. I was ever more concerned to hear that Subway was represented at the jobs fair that was organised a couple of weeks ago. I think that it is deeply inappropriate for highly trained, highly skilled steelworkers to be offered jobs making sandwiches at Subway. I hope the Minister agrees that is not the future we want for the industry.

Jonathan Edwards: The steel industry is a vital component in the Welsh economy, not only providing thousands of people with employment, but contributing heavily to Wales’s GDP and export base. The activities of Tata Steel alone reportedly support 18,000 jobs in Wales, and its operations are worth £3.2 billion annually to the Welsh economy.
	However, the steel industry in Wales is under significant pressure. In the second quarter of this year alone, the value of Wales’s exports of iron and steel were down by almost £120 million. Thousands of tonnes of cheap steel is being imported every week from Turkey, Russia and China, flooding the UK market and undercutting Welsh-produced steel.
	Protecting the steel industry from the volatility of the markets should be a priority for the UK Government, and it should be pursued with the same vigour as we saw when the banks were bailed out in 2008. It is vital that both the UK and Welsh Governments strengthen internal supply chains and procurement practices to ensure that demand for domestic steel is maintained, and Plaid Cymru’s policy of increasing infrastructure expenditure by 1% of GDP is one obvious way to increase demand.
	Tata Steel has previously cited the high cost of business rates and high energy costs as causes of recent redundancies. Why do the UK Government not establish an emergency business rates relief scheme targeted specifically at the steel industry? Given that business rates in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Government, such a scheme at UK level would trigger consequential funding for Wales, which could be used by the Welsh Government to create their own scheme to protect this key sector in our country. Creating such a scheme would be more affordable than the reduction in tax receipts and the increase in out-of-work benefits to which the decline of the industry will ultimately lead. Also, as Aditya Chakrabortty writes in The Guardian today, why not access the European Commission’s globalisation adjustment fund?
	Another key difficulty that British steelmakers face is the extraordinarily high cost of energy across the UK. The UK is one of the most expensive places in Europe for energy. Despite Wales being a net exporter of electricity, energy is even more expensive there than in other parts of the UK. Is it not time that the UK Government broke the monopoly of the big six and followed the example of Sweden and France by creating state-owned energy companies? Many of my constituents will be receiving energy bills from EDF, an energy company almost entirely owned by the French state. The money they pay to EDF effectively subsidises energy bills for French consumers. Similarly, profits made by Vattenfall in its UK operations effectively assist the Swedish Treasury in funding upgrades to Sweden’s energy infrastructure, and the same can be said for Statkraft and Norway.
	Cutting the cost of energy would have a significant bearing on the future of the steel industry, but we need to do so sustainably, without threatening the future energy security by killing off the renewables industry. Is it not time to take profits out of the equation? Is it not time for the UK Government to adopt Plaid Cymru’s policy and establish an arm’s length, state-owned and not-for-dividend-profit energy company to serve the needs of industry and citizens?

Nicholas Dakin: I am bemused when I compare the Government’s amendment with the main motion, because I cannot see what they have to object to. The amendment leaves out the motion’s reference to the “national strategic importance” of the steel industry. I think it is nationally strategically important. The motion refers to having an industrial strategy. I think we should have an industrial strategy, and many Conservative Members have said so too. It refers to
	“looking at temporary action on business rates”.
	As my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), pointed out, discussions are ongoing with North Lincolnshire Council, BIS and Tata on that very issue. I really do not understand why the Government feel they need to amend this very effective motion seeking the five industrial asks, and I hope the Minister will explain why.
	I want to give a voice to my constituents, to whom I pay the utmost tribute for the way in which they are handling themselves in these difficult circumstances following the announcements last week. Kevin Allen, who voted Conservative at the recent local and national elections, wrote to me to say:
	“I’m a 4th generation steel worker and I’m in fear of my livelihood, if I lose my job then I’ve lost everything, I support two house holds in this town two families so not only have I lost everything so has the other party, that will be 5 people seeking government hand outs, I won’t be the only one in this position, for every steel job this town loses there will be a huge knock on effect with others”.
	That is the heartfelt reality in my community.
	I had an email from a homeowner in Bottesford who says,
	“my husband and I have worked on the steelworks for 36 and 31 years respectively and we are passionate about our jobs and the industry that we are proud to be part of. It hasn’t been easy and we have faced many issues but have fought to survive over the years often working long unpaid hours. The severe situation that we now face feels very different to all others”.
	She continues:
	“From a strategic point of view we cannot afford to lose our steel industry, we will be totally at the mercy of other countries with little bargaining power.”

Alex Cunningham: A couple of weeks ago I met community officials in Stockton who talked about Ravenscraig in central Scotland, saying that the community there has not yet recovered. That fear must be shared in my hon. Friend’s communities, as well as in others across Teesside.

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why it is great to see steelworkers here lobbying Parliament today. It is great to see steelworkers and their families in Scunthorpe high street gathering signatures for petitions and people queuing up to sign them. This is crucial to our community.
	It is clear what needs to be done. The five industrial asks that were considered at the steel summit are the five industrial asks that the Government now need to deliver on. They need to act before it is too late.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am dropping the time limit to two minutes. I call Stephen Doughty.

Stephen Doughty: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for fitting me in to speak for a very brief time.
	I want to pay tribute to the Celsa Steel workforce in my constituency, to many members of the community, and to all the steelworkers who have come up here today to meet us to emphasise what a crisis this is and what needs to be done. I have never before seen an issue on which there has been such unanimity about what the Government need to do among MPs in all parts of the House, among the unions and the management of the steel industry across the UK, and across the supply chain and all those involved in the industry.
	I am not going to rehearse the arguments because I do not have time, but we have been making them for a very long time. I want to get from the Minister a real understanding of why it has taken so long to get to this point. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the work that she and the Secretary of State for Wales, who is also here, have done. They have both listened carefully and acknowledged the concerns expressed, and I hope they are really serious about wanting to take action.
	However, I and many others have been meeting on these issues for well over two years. I met the Secretary of State for Wales and the former steel Minister, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), on 11 November last year, and I was meeting BIS and DECC officials two years before that. We, and the industry, have consistently raised the concerns about dumping, energy costs, the impact of taxation, and the slowness in bringing forth the energy-intensive industries compensation package, yet only in very recent days have we seen substantive action. That reflects two basic things about this Government: first, the lack of an industrial strategy, and of political leadership, across Government; and, secondly and more fundamentally, their attitude towards Europe, on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove). We cannot deal with dumping by countries such as China unless we are working together across the European Union.
	I want to understand why this has taken so long. The Minister took action, but why was that? Why is this such a revelation at this stage? This should have been going on for years. That is the fundamental point that I want to make.

Neil Gray: My heart goes out to steelworkers, and their families, who are at risk of losing their jobs at Tata Steel, both north and south of the border, as well as to those whose associated jobs are also at risk. This is a huge blow to Lanarkshire, and we now learn that as well as the threat to steel jobs in Dalzell and Clydebridge, North Lanarkshire Council is consulting on shedding up to 1,100 jobs thanks to public sector cuts from this UK Government. This is a very worrying time in my area.
	Yesterday, Fergus Ewing MSP, Minister for Business, Energy and Tourism, delivered a statement to the Scottish Parliament about the crisis, so let me contrast the approach taken by the two Governments so far. The Scottish Government took the first opportunity after the recess to go to the Chamber and make a statement; the UK Government had to be dragged to the Chamber by an urgent question and now an Opposition day debate.
	In his statement Mr Ewing said:
	“let me be clear from the outset that we will leave no stone unturned in our efforts to save the steel industry in Scotland. Our top priority is to secure an alternative operator to continue with commercial production. We are aware that that task is not an easy one and that there are significant challenges facing the continued production of steel in Scotland, but we are determined, as a Government, to use all our resources and, as ministers, to devote our individual time and attention, as required, to do absolutely everything that we can do to prevent the loss of steel making in Scotland.”
	The Scottish Government had asked to be part of EU talks on the steel crisis, but this Government refused as they continue to abandon their so-called and short-lived respect agenda—an agenda that has been further abandoned by the revelation that the Prime Minister shamefully refused to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I sincerely hope that a buyer can be found for the Tata sites, and that the steel industry can continue. For that to happen, the Scottish Government must work through the taskforce—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Sammy Wilson: Although Northern Ireland does not have a steel industry, we have seen the impact that the loss of major industries has on communities. Two issues should concern all Members present in the debate. The first is our relationship with the EU. All suggestions that have been put forward—compensation for electricity prices, procurement or preference given to British steel, or even a reduction in business rates—must be cleared by Europe. Time and again our involvement with the European Union has been detrimental to our industry.
	Secondly, energy costs have impacted on the steel industry and will impact on all major manufacturing employers across the United Kingdom. We have been warned that as a result of green taxes that we will impose between now and 2020, electricity prices will escalate. That is a deliberate policy. The carbon price floor will take £23 billion from the pockets of electricity consumers, and on top of that we have feed-in tariffs, contracts for difference, and renewables obligations—all that is imposed on our major manufacturing industries.
	There is a schizophrenic attitude in the House to energy prices. We complain when we lose jobs, yet we ask for the introduction of more green policies. If we do not have a consistent policy, many more jobs will be lost in future.

Margaret Ferrier: I welcome the opportunity to speak up once again on behalf of my constituents at Clydebridge as they are facing an uncertain future. I know how they must be feeling right now. All too often politicians are accused of having no real-life experience, but I know only too well how it feels to be made redundant. The wait that steelworkers at Tata Steel are currently going through to find out whether they will still have a job in a few weeks is agonising. There is never a good time to lose a job, but job losses would be utterly devastating for those workers.
	The Scottish steel taskforce meets tomorrow for the first time. I will be there, and I hope that the pragmatic approach taken will help to find a buyer who can continue commercial production at those sites.

Angela Smith: Will the taskforce consider the importance of the construction of Trident submarines to keeping steel jobs in Scotland?

Margaret Ferrier: No.
	The force involves multiple stakeholders of various political persuasions, as well as those of none.

Marion Fellows: Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade unions, especially Community, have been fundamental in keeping the two Scottish plants going this far, and that this has been recognised by the Scottish Government, unlike by the Conservative party, which seeks—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That intervention is far too long. We want short interventions. We should be on to the vote by now. We have been very generous and it has been abused.

Margaret Ferrier: I thank my hon. Friend for intervening.
	I welcome yesterday’s announcement from Scottish business Minister, Fergus Ewing, that Transport Scotland is reviewing all its infrastructure projects, looking at how public procurement might be utilised to help to stimulate the industry.
	Steel is used to create more than 80% of the components required to build a typical wind turbine, and plate steel from Tata’s Scunthorpe and Dalzell mills is used in the fabrication of these renewables. UK Government policy on the removal of support for renewables will have an adverse impact along the supply chain, particularly on the steel industry. Plans to cut support for renewables need to be dropped now. The UK has the highest carbon tax in the world. More than half the UK power price is made up of this tax. Steel needs to be given the recognition it deserves in helping to grow the renewables sector, thus reducing carbon emissions in the long term.
	I welcome today’s announcement that the Government will refund energy intensive industries for the full amount of the policy costs they face as soon as the state aid judgment comes from Brussels. The Chancellor, however, must take lessons from our European neighbours who have taken matters into their own hands to support their industries, and then obtained state aid clearance retrospectively. A bold move like that could almost certainly facilitate the process of finding a buyer for the sites in Scotland.
	Chinese overproduction is leading to steel being sold below market price, and this is being achieved only through Government subsidy in China. Approximately 70% of the Chinese steel industry is thought to be unprofitable. If this were the UK, the industry would have collapsed by now. In short, the European steel market is fighting with one hand tied behind its back. We have both hands bound and the playing field urgently needs to be levelled.
	We need a real long-term strategy for steel. We owe it to the thousands of steelworkers across the UK and their families to support them and ensure a sustainability and security of employment. I will work with anyone to help to secure a future for the industry and the jobs of steelworkers in my constituency and right across the UK.
	Saving British steel will not be easy, but we must now rise to the challenge and explore every possible option, so we can reach what should be a shared aim for all in this place. We must never give up on the steel industry and the highly skilled workers in their hour of need.

Kevin Brennan: We have had a very good and, understandably under the circumstances, passionate debate. I am sorry that because the wind-ups have been truncated—the Minister and I have, I think, eight minutes each—we will not be able to refer to everybody who spoke in the debate. I think 21 Back Benchers participated in the debate. It is good that they were all able to speak and they did so with great passion. I would like to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who represents the Llanwern area. That was where my father worked for 20 years and where I was privileged to work in the steel plant and coke ovens for six months before I went up to university. People who come from steelmaking backgrounds understand why everyone feels so passionate about this subject. I am sorry I cannot mention everybody’s contributions, but I commend the knowledge and passion the hon. Members who represent steelmaking constituencies brought to our proceedings, not just today but throughout the current crisis and long before that.
	The Government cannot say that they were not warned about the crisis in the steel industry. MPs have been assiduously vocal over a long period of time. I see that the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), the so-called Minister for the northern powerhouse, has joined us. If he missed any of today’s proceedings he can read about them in TheNorthern Echo tomorrow. The efforts of my hon. Friends have been the very opposite of the showboating they were accused of. On the contrary, they have stood up for their communities, the British steel industry and its workers. They have made a substantial contribution towards forcing the
	Government to acknowledge that action is required, however late and inadequate it might be. It is good that the Business Secretary is finally talking to the European Commission, and it is good that he has gone to Brussels. Only last week, we found out in a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) that he had not—incredibly—until now spoken to the Commission about this. Clearly, he booked his Eurostar tickets very quickly to get over there today, and we welcome that.
	It is perfectly reasonable, however, to ask why it has taken so long. Why has the Business Secretary been chasing rather than leading events? We know that when he became Business Secretary he did not want to have an industrial strategy and preferred to talk about an “industrial approach”. That hardly smacks of someone who will intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner, let alone supper, on behalf of British industry. There are echoes today of the famous row between Margaret Thatcher and Michael Heseltine over Westland.

Bill Cash: rose—

Kevin Brennan: I am not going to give way, because of time.
	We found out today that the Government are ordering hundreds of military vehicles and three new ships for our armed forces to be built using steel imported from Sweden. And this at the same time as Gareth Stace, of UK Steel, said that the British steel industry was “likely to die” without stronger support from the Government. He said that yesterday to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. We should not be surprised that the Business Secretary has until now pursued what Tata called in its briefing for this debate a laissez-faire ideology, because he has made it clear that that is what he believes in. You might not have read it, Mr Deputy Speaker, but his favourite book is “The Fountainhead”, by Ayn Rand, in which the hero blows up a poor housing estate because he does not like the design, such is his individualist approach.

Anna Soubry: Shameful.

Kevin Brennan: The Minister may say that, but my argument is that the basic cause of the Government’s slowness to respond to the steel crisis is that the Secretary of State fundamentally believes that it is not the business of Government to get involved in markets and industry. So while he is having to be seen to be doing something by going to Brussels today, he is actually in practice—[Interruption.] Government Members can chunter away as usual all they like, but in practice he has been busy planning the dismantling of his Department’s capacity to support steel and other key strategic British industries. He has volunteered to cut his Department’s budget by 40% , and this week we read in the Financial Times how investment grants to key British sectors are being converted to loans. It turns out that the much-vaunted apprenticeship levy will become a displacement tax on business and will not compensate for their cuts to the training budget.
	This approach has to stop, and it is has to be replaced with a proper industrial strategy based on the consensus built up under the last Labour Government and, in fact, the last coalition Government, but which the Business Secretary does not believe in. We need a much clearer steer from the Government that they are prepared not only to say that steel is a key strategic industry, but to act to ensure it remains a key strategic industry. I again ask Ministers what they think is the minimum capacity for steelmaking in the UK below which it is not in the country’s strategic interests to go? The Minister told the Select Committee:
	“I have an absolute determination to keep steel in this country”.
	In her winding-up speech, will she make it absolutely clear what she means by minimum capacity for this strategic industry? What efforts are Ministers making to calculate the cost of cleaning up sites such as Redcar when they close? In a written parliamentary answer to me last week, she could not say. How can the Government decide whether closure is the right choice when they cannot even estimate the cost of cleaning up the site?
	At last week’s urgent question, I urged the Business Secretary to implement the five points raised by UK Steel at the steel summit the previous week. At that time, he could not confirm that he would. Will the Minister now confirm, albeit belatedly, that the Government will do that, and will she fully implement the energy intensive industry compensation package now, not later?
	Will the Government finally press hard at the EU level on anti-dumping measures? Will the Minister even admit that dumping is going on? Will she let that phrase cross her lips in her response? Will they remove plant and machinery from business rate calculations and stop gold-plating EU regulations? Will they support the use of British steel in major projects, unlike what we hear today with the staggering news about Swedish steel being used by the Ministry of Defence? Will they listen to calls from the trade unions, including Community, for a long-term strategy rather than a hand-to-mouth approach? What are the Government going to do to support skills retention and short-time working during the current crisis, if that is needed?
	This has been the first major industrial test for the Business Secretary in particular and for the Conservative Government in general since the general election As I have argued, their initial response was to revert to type and do as little as possible. They were prepared, it seemed, to let a key strategic industry die without a fight. Because of the chorus of voices from local MPs, from us as Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, from the workforce, from employers and from the public, they have had to move, albeit far too slowly and too late for thousands who have lost their jobs The steel industry is a classic example of a case where the Government need to be prepared to roll up their sleeves immediately and intervene before breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner. This Government have been slow to act. The steelworkers whose jobs have been lost know it, the British public know it and, deep down inside, Ministers know it too—it will not be forgotten.

Anna Soubry: May I begin by paying tribute to all those who work in our steel industry, particularly the workforce and indeed the management? I pay particular tribute to all those—it is mainly men, but some women also work there—who have unfortunately lost their jobs, and to their families, be they at Dalzell, Clydebridge, Scunthorpe, Rotherham, Llanwern or Redcar.
	Nobody should ever dare to suggest that anybody on the Government Benches has taken any pleasure, happiness or anything else in the unfortunate demise we have seen over recent times of a large part of our steel industry. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is sitting there, but he made one of the most disappointing speeches I have ever heard. He does no service whatsoever to his industry and the workers he says he seeks to support, who have come all this way to be here today. In the short time I have been in my position it has been a pleasure to attend a number of debates and even urgent questions to listen to the impassioned speeches of so many Members who speak on behalf of their constituents, and rightly so. That is their job and they do it. But, seriously and genuinely, to try to score cheap political and, in many respects, highly personal points does absolutely nothing at all. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) shouts at me, but he should know better. He knows how hard I, and others, worked to secure the future of the Redcar plant, but let us get to the facts.
	The facts are as follows: the price of steel has in some instances, slab in particular, almost halved. That is the harsh reality. On the Redcar plant, it is a fact that all the time SSI was there—more than three and a half years—it lost hundreds of millions of pounds. You can have my word, Mr Deputy Speaker, that if anybody had come forward to buy the blast furnace to secure it or the coke ovens, the official receiver would have taken those offers exceedingly seriously. But the horrible truth is that no such buyers came forward, and why would they?

Bill Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Anna Soubry: I am sorry, but I am not taking interventions. They would not, because the plant was losing hundreds of millions of pounds—even the coke ovens, which we fought so hard to secure, were losing £2 million a month. That was the harsh, awful reality.
	All the steel industry asks for—and it is right to make these requests—is that we have a level playing field. It feels that its hands are tied behind its back. It makes its case, and I pay tribute to Gareth Stace, one of the first people—
	Several hon. Members rose—

Anna Soubry: No, I am not giving way. He was one of the first people that I met after my appointment, because I knew how much he knew about the British steel industry. It wants a level playing field, and it is right to do so. That is what this Government are doing.
	Let me make it absolutely clear—

Andy McDonald: Will the Minister give way?

Anna Soubry: No.

Andy McDonald: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We hear from the Minister that no people were coming forward to discuss projects to take over at SSI. She needs to correct that position, because there were consortiums of—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. That is not a point of order, but a point of debate. I understand that emotions are running very high.

Anna Soubry: As I said, nobody came forward with an offer, and the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) knows that I held a meeting with someone who had said they were interested, but the harsh awful reality was that nobody came forward with an offer.

Andy McDonald: rose—

Anna Soubry: No, I will not take any more interventions from the hon. Gentleman. I will talk to him as I always do but I do not have time for interventions.
	Let me explain the actions that the Government have taken. On energy costs, we have already paid out £50 million in compensation to the steel industry. In relation to the “unfair trade”, as we put it—in simple and sharp terms “dumping”—one of the first things we did when we were elected was to take a decision and cast our vote to protect our steel industry. That had never happened before, and it was done specifically on the direction of myself and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Then we turn to Rebar—the investigation was started on behalf of this Government and on behalf of the steel industry after it came to us and presented us with the evidence.
	Now let us look at procurement. Opposition Members, and indeed Government Members—I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) who fights as hard as he always does for his steel workforce—quite properly talk about a difficulty over procurement. Again, let us look at the evidence. The evidence is absolutely clear. We have already changed the rules for the benefit, not just of the British steel industry but for the whole of British industry, because we put into the score card of the public sector the fact that social and environmental considerations could be taken into account. That was the first time that had happened, so I am not taking any lessons from Labour Members, who had an opportunity to do that for 13 years and failed to do so. That is the sort of direct action that we have taken. We are taking this further. We have three working groups, one of which is looking specifically at how we can extend those rules further—and not just in the public sector.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Anna Soubry: The hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) can come to see me any time. The hon. Member for Hartlepool made a really good point about the supply chains. Yes, we can chase public procurement, but we have to make sure it goes through the supply chain, which is absolutely the sort of work that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) is doing—looking at how best to take those new rules all the way through the supply chain.
	The Government will take further actions. We have advanced the talks with the Commission for millions more in compensation. That is why the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is not here today; he is over in Brussels doing a brilliant job. We have already spoken to the most important Ministers about how to change things and how to secure and work with our allies in Europe to make sure that we look at the state-aid rules and how we can do more on dumping to protect our steel industry.
	If we look at the Crossrail contract, we find that 97% of all the materials have been placed with British companies using British materials. We know that 40,000 tonnes of steel for HMS Queen Elizabeth was made by Tata, while 95% of Network Rail’s steel is British steel. It has embarked, under this Government, on the biggest programme of railway investment that has been seen since Victorian times. If only it were as simple as—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly(Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 280, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.
	The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House is concerned by the impact that recent redundancies in the steel sector could have on local communities and welcomes Government support for affected people in those communities; recognises the unprecedented global challenges currently facing the UK steel industry and agrees that all parties, including Government, opposition parties and the industry need to work together to secure a sustainable future for UK steel; and notes that the Government is in regular dialogue with the industry, including hosting a recent Steel Summit, and is taking urgent action to address both the industry's short-term and long-term concerns, including energy costs, unfair trade, the Industrial Emissions Directive and long-term procurement opportunities for the industry so as to ensure that the UK steel industry has a sustainable future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I now have to announce the result of a deferred Division on the question relating to Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Ayes were 485 and the Noes were 61, so the question was agreed to.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

Junior Doctors’ Contracts

Heidi Alexander: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the stalled discussions between Government and the British Medical Association (BMA) about a new junior doctors’ contract; opposes the removal of financial penalties from hospitals which protect staff from working excessive hours; urges the Government to guarantee that no junior doctor will have their pay cut as a result of a new contract; and calls upon the Government to withdraw the threat of contract imposition, put forward proposals which are safe for patients and fair for junior doctors and return to negotiations with the BMA.
	It is a privilege to be opening a debate from the Opposition Dispatch Box for the first time, and I want to start in a way that is perhaps untypical for these debates. I want the Secretary of State and me to agree on something. I want him to join me in saying thank you to everyone who works in the NHS and in the care system in our country—not just the junior doctors who are the subject of today’s debate but all the staff who work day in, day out caring for our loved ones as though they were their own. So, to our doctors, nurses, porters, care workers and paramedics I say this: I know how hard you work; I know that many of you already work nights, weekends and even Christmas day, and for that we are hugely grateful.
	I have called this debate today because I am deeply worried about the current stand-off between the Government and junior doctors. I am worried that a new Government-imposed employment contract will be unsafe for patients and unfair for doctors. I am worried that if the Health Secretary gets his way, he will fast become the best recruiting sergeant that the Australian health service has ever had.

Mark Spencer: Does the hon. Lady therefore agree that the best course of action would be to get round the negotiating table again? Will she encourage the British Medical Association to come back to the negotiating table?

Heidi Alexander: If the hon. Gentleman reads the motion, he will see that it talks about a return to the negotiating table, but the BMA and the junior doctors need to know that the Health Secretary is genuinely willing to compromise, and his performance over the past few months suggests otherwise.

Gisela Stuart: My constituency has one of the highest proportions of doctors of any in the country. My junior doctors are worried that they are being asked to work in conditions that are becoming unsafe. They also point out that they have choices, and many do not think that their future lies in this country. They will make a different choice because the damage has already been done.

Heidi Alexander: My right hon. Friend is completely right, and I will come to some of those challenges later in my speech.
	When the NHS is facing unprecedented challenges, it cannot be right to pick a fight with the very people who keep our hospitals running. I come here today to ask the Secretary of State to do three things: to show that he is willing to compromise by withdrawing the threat of contract imposition; to guarantee that no junior doctor will be paid less to do the same, or more, than they are currently doing; and to ensure financial penalties for any hospital that forces doctors to work excessive and exhausting hours.

Roger Gale: On that basis, given that the Secretary of State has indicated in terms that no junior doctor will be required to work more hours—rather, it is fewer hours—than at present and that they will not lose money, can the hon. Lady give me any reason why the doctors’ leader was able to say to me earlier in the week that he would not get round the negotiating table and talk?

Heidi Alexander: I am afraid that the Health Secretary has given absolutely no guarantee that no junior doctor will be paid less.
	I have set out the three things that I wish the Secretary of State to do today. Anyone listening to this debate would say that they were all reasonable things to request. Anyone who wants to avoid industrial action would want the Secretary of State to step up and do the right thing.

Richard Burgon: Is my hon. Friend aware that tonight in Leeds, 2,000 junior doctors are getting together to protest against this Government’s plans? Does it not come to something when 2,000 junior doctors get together in such a way? Why, despite the assurances from those on the Government Benches, does she think that that is happening?

Heidi Alexander: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The junior doctors I have met are deeply concerned about patient safety and about what the proposed new contract means for them.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Heidi Alexander: I will not give way, because I wish to make some progress.
	The Health Secretary may claim that he is doing all he can to make the contract fair and safe, but the truth is that he is not. He may say that the overall pay envelope for junior doctors will stay the same, but he will not say who the losers will be. He may say that no junior doctor will work excessively long hours, but he will not tell us that he is removing the very safeguards that were designed to prevent that. He may even say that he has some support, but he will not read out the range of independent clinical voices who have condemned his approach.

Paul Maynard: The hon. Lady is right to focus on the future contract, but does she recognise the inadequacies in the existing contract?

Heidi Alexander: I am not saying that the existing contract is perfect—I do not think that the British Medical Association would say that either. A few months ago, an alternative contract was being discussed, the work on which was led by the former Health Minister, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter). The answer is not the contract that is on the table at the moment.

Steve McCabe: The Secretary of State may say that the overall pay envelope remains the same, but, as far as I am aware, it has been really hard to fathom how the difference between the local education training board contribution and the individual trusts will work. It may not be the same, but even if it is, is this not an example of further administrative and organisational costs being imposed on the health service by a Tory Secretary of State?

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is completely right. The lack of clarity in all these negotiations is something that I will come on to later.
	The truth is that if the Secretary of State wanted to persuade junior doctors that industrial action is not the answer, he has the power to do so; it is his political choice.
	Junior doctors are the lifeblood of the NHS. Two weeks ago, I spent a morning shadowing a junior doctor at Lewisham hospital. It was the single most powerful thing I have done since taking on this role. I was blown away by the skills, knowledge, humanity and professionalism I saw. The junior doctor I shadowed was working a gruelling 11-hour night shift and regularly works 60-hour weeks. I left the hospital asking myself how it could possibly be right to say to that individual, “You might be paid less for the work that you do.”

Andrew Stephenson: I think we would all join the hon. Lady in her glowing tributes to our tireless junior doctors, working long hours across the NHS. Considering that not a penny is planned to be cut from the junior doctors’ pay bill, does she not agree that it is irresponsible for the BMA to suggest there will be pay cuts of 30% to 40% for some doctors?

Heidi Alexander: As I have already said, there is absolutely no clarity. The hon. Gentleman might do well to read the article that appeared in The Guardian on 4 October, written by the former Health Minister, who quite clearly states that he has concerns about the fact that the new contract might be used as a lever to find some of the £22 billion of efficiency savings that the NHS needs to find over the next few years.

Andrew Murrison: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Heidi Alexander: I will not give way, as I am going to make some progress.
	Junior doctors are not just the first-year trainees fresh out of medical school. They are also the senior house officers and registrars with 12 or 15 years of experience. Junior doctors account for almost half of all doctors in hospitals and the vast majority already work nights and weekends. The responsibilities they carry are huge. Take the junior paediatric doctor working in accident and emergency who emailed me last week. Some of the things she does, I could never ever do. In her email, she said:
	“I am in charge of teams resuscitating dying children regularly. I have had to make the decision to stop resuscitating a dying child. I have had to tell parents that their child is going to die.
	I have been the only doctor trying to stick a tiny breathing tube into a baby born 16 weeks early and weighing 600g at 3 in the morning.”
	How is it right that she should face the prospect of being paid less? She is not asking to be paid more. She is just asking to be paid the same and to keep the safeguards that prevent her from being stretched even further.

Lucy Frazer: I do not think that any of us dispute the fantastic work that doctors do day in, day out, but we need to debate the motion that the hon. Lady has proposed. She said there were three points that she wants to put to the Secretary of State, but she failed to mention the one in the last line of the motion, which is that she wants proposals to be put forward that are “safe for patients”. Given that there was an article just last month on 5 September in the BMJ, put together by seven experts, including three professionals, that said that there was a clear association between weekend admission and worse outcomes for patients—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sorry, but hon. Members should know that interventions should be short. You cannot make a speech in an intervention, and that should be a lesson for us all. Many Members want to speak and I want to get everybody in.

Heidi Alexander: The problem with how the Government have handled the negotiations is that they have provided absolutely no clarity to junior doctors about what the proposals would mean for them individually. Everyone thinks that they are going to lose out.
	The Government say that they want to reduce the number of hours defined as “unsocial” and thereby decrease the number of hours that attract a higher rate of pay. They say that they will put the rate of pay for plain time up to compensate, but there is no guarantee that the amount by which basic pay goes up will offset the loss of pay associated with fewer hours being defined as unsocial. Does the Secretary of State understand that those who work the most unsociable hours, the junior doctors who sacrifice more of their weekends and nights, feel that they have the most to lose?

Andrew Slaughter: That is exactly the point, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is exposing the misleading comments of the Government, who are defending the indefensible. It is exactly those doctors—in maternity, in paediatrics, in emergency medicine—who will lose out the most and will see their pay cut by up to a third.

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend is right. His concern is shared by the President of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, along with 14 other leaders of medical royal colleges and faculties, who point out that as currently proposed, the new contract would
	“act as a disincentive to recruitment in posts that involve substantial evening and weekend shifts, as well as diminishing the morale of those doctors already working in challenging conditions.”
	It cannot possibly be right.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I join her in the praise that she issued in her opening remarks. What advice might she give the BMA, were she asked for it? Is it better for the BMA to get back around the table, so that the very important points that she is raising can be sorted out, or go straight to a ballot? Is it not better to talk first, then, if the BMA does not like it, by all means ballot? It is certainly doing it in the wrong way.

Heidi Alexander: The problem is that junior doctors are not convinced that the Secretary of State is negotiating in good faith.
	When one talks to junior doctors about the proposed new contract, one thing is striking: pay is less important to them than patient safety.

Ian Lavery: I was humbled, privileged and honoured, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), to march with the junior doctors in Newcastle on Saturday—5,000 junior doctors, hardly militants or revolutionaries, who were fighting not just for the pay but in the best interests of their patients. If there are no problems, if everything in the garden is rosy, why on earth are they demonstrating?

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The junior doctors I have met are genuinely worried that the proposals make it more likely, not less, that they will be forced to work even more punishing hours. The removal of financial penalties for hospitals that force junior doctors to work beyond their rostered hours concerns them. They are right to be concerned.

Wes Streeting: A junior doctor in my constituency made precisely that point. She was an A&E doctor. My hon. Friend knows that there is an A&E crisis in London. The Health Secretary needs to understand that while there is indecision and no conclusion to the negotiations, junior doctors are making decisions about where they are going—and they are not staying in England. That is the point.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes a very valid point about the impact on recruitment and retention of doctors in the capital.

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Heidi Alexander: Tired doctors make mistakes. It is obvious but it is true. Nobody wants to return to the bad old days of junior doctors too exhausted to provide safe patient care. It is bad for doctors, it is bad for patients and it is bad for the NHS. So why are this Government hellbent on forcing through these unsafe changes?
	The Secretary of State claims that the changes are about making it easier for hospitals to ensure that the staff needed to provide safe care at the weekends and on nights are available. Is he saying that there are not enough junior doctors on hospital wards and in A&E departments at these times currently? If so, how many more junior doctors would be present at these times as a percentage increase on current staffing levels if the new contract goes through? If the changes are about increasing the cover at weekends and nights, surely it means less cover at other times of the week unless he finds more money for more doctors.
	I understand the arguments for increasing consultant cover at weekends and nights. I understand it is vital that patients who are admitted on a Sunday get to see a consultant as quickly as those admitted on a Tuesday, and I am pleased that the BMA’s consultants committee is negotiating with the Government on improving levels of consultant cover. Indeed, everyone in the NHS supports the principle of seven-day services. But this debate is about junior doctors. Junior doctors are already working evenings and weekends. So why has the Health Secretary tried to make this a row about seven-day services?
	Let me quote some of the claims that the Secretary of State has made in recent weeks. In response to a question on the junior doctor contract from my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), he said:
	“someone is 15% more likely to die if admitted on a Sunday than on a Wednesday because we do not have as many doctors in our hospitals at the weekends as we have mid-week.”
	In response to a question that I asked him about junior doctors, the Secretary of State said that the overtime rates that are paid at weekends
	“give hospitals a disincentive to roster as many doctors as they need at weekends, and that leads to those 11,000 excessive deaths.”
	He went on to say:
	“there are 11,000 excess deaths because we do not staff our hospitals properly at weekends.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 150-1.]
	The authors of the research that the Secretary of State has been quoting said that it would be “rash and misleading” to claim that the deaths were all avoidable. Yet the Health Secretary has got dangerously close to doing just that. Indeed, he has gone so far down that route that some people do not think that our hospitals are properly staffed at the weekend. I know of elderly patients delaying their visit to hospital because they do not think that there will be enough doctors there. That leads to more complicated treatment, longer patient recovery time, people’s lives being put in danger and a bigger bill for the NHS to cap it all off. That is appalling. Don’t get me wrong: I am as committed as anyone to high-quality care, available 24/7, 365 days a year, but the Secretary of State needs to be careful with his words. He should look in the mirror and ask himself whether his soundbites are true to the conclusions of the study he references.

Rehman Chishti: Rather than quoting the Secretary of State, I quote back to the hon. Lady the words of Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, who said that if the weekend effect is addressed, it “could save lives”.

Heidi Alexander: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Let me quote the editor of the British Medical Journal, who wrote to the Secretary of State on 20 October, saying that he had
	“publicly misrepresented an academic article published in The BMJ”.
	She asks him to clarify the statements that he has made in relation to the article to show that he fully understands the issues involves. She further says:
	“Misusing data to mislead the public is not the way to achieve”
	the very best health service for patients and the public. The Health Secretary needs to be clear on exactly how reforming the junior doctor contract will deliver a seven-day NHS. He should set out how he plans to pay for seven-day services, and precisely which services he is talking about.

Helen Hayes: Last week I meet junior doctors in my constituency, many of whom told me that they cannot afford to live in London. One reported that she was sleeping on the sofas of friends and family members in order to cover her night shifts while working in London. The doctors also reported unfilled vacancies in departments in the hospital which serve and look after the sickest patients. Does my hon. Friend agree that the recruitment and retention of junior doctors is a bigger threat to patient safety than the issues to which the Secretary of State alludes?

Heidi Alexander: I do agree. I was talking about a seven-day NHS. A truly 24/7 NHS does not just mean consultants being more readily available; it means 24/7 access to diagnostic tests, social care, occupational therapists—the list goes on. If the Secretary of State has a magic pot of money to pay for all that, bearing it in mind that the NHS can barely pay for the work that it is currently doing, I am all ears. If his plan is to deliver seven-day services by spreading existing services more thinly, he should come clean and say so.

Emily Thornberry: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful speech. I bring her back to an earlier point which needs emphasising. At the moment trusts have to provide rosters that are not only fair but safe, so that junior doctors get time off. Now it seems that trusts will no longer have to pay attention to those rules and will no longer be fined if they do not follow them.

Heidi Alexander: There are very serious concerns about the proposed new contract, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight them.
	The sad thing is that it did not have to be this way. Instead of using the dispute with junior doctors to suit his own political ends, the Health Secretary should have listened. He should have understood the depth and strength of concern before it got to the point where junior doctors feel as though they are the first line of defence in a fight for the future of the NHS. Instead of telling junior doctors that the BMA was misleading them, he should have respected their intelligence and responded to their concerns. At the very least, he should have heeded the words of the present Prime Minister, who said this about junior doctors when addressing a rally in 2007:
	“There’s a simple truth at the heart of this: you came into the NHS not because you wanted to get rich or famous, but because you have a vocation about curing the ill, about serving your community.”
	The Prime Minister went on to say in his conference speech a few days later:
	“I will never forget walking on the streets of London marching with 10,000 junior doctors who felt like they were being treated like cogs in a machine rather than professionals with a vocation to go out and save lives”.
	It is time the Health Secretary started treating junior doctors like the intelligent professionals they are. When I spoke at the junior doctors rally in London 10 days ago, I delivered a message for the Health Secretary. He was not working that Saturday so I repeat it for him now: stop the high-handed demands, show you are prepared to compromise and put patients before politics.

Jeremy Hunt: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
	“welcomes the Government’s commitment to delivering seven-day hospital services and saving lives by combating the weekend effect; notes the British Medical Association’s (BMA) decision to walk away from negotiations to reform a contract which all sides acknowledge is not fit for purpose; further notes the Government’s proposed introduction of new contractual limits which protect staff from working unsafe hours and the commitment that average junior doctors’ pay will not fall; and calls on the BMA to put patient care first, to choose talks over strikes, and to return to negotiations.”.
	I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) to her post at her first Opposition day debate.
	One Saturday in April 2006 a 20-year-old man called John Moore-Robinson was out mountain biking with his friends in Cannock Chase when he fell off his bike and the handlebars hit his stomach. His friends dialled 999 and he was rushed to hospital. Although the paramedic who took him to hospital thought he had life-threatening internal bleeding, instead of being treated he was left for 50 minutes, apart from a brief examination. Then he was told he had bruised ribs and sent home. In fact, he had a ruptured spleen and tragically died later that Saturday night.
	Tragedies happen in any healthcare system, and despite such stories I am fiercely proud of our NHS and the brilliant care given by our doctors and nurses seven days a week. The hon. Lady was right to thank each and every one of them. Anyone who uses such stories to denigrate the NHS should remember that last year the Commonwealth fund rated us the best healthcare system of 11 major countries—better than France, Germany, Australia or the US—and rated our A and E departments —[Interruption.] It was the Opposition who called this debate, so they might want to listen to some of the arguments. This is a very important issue about the lives of NHS patients, and I am saying that the tragedies and the problems we have should not be used to denigrate the NHS or our A and E departments.
	Part of being the best in the world is being honest about where we need to improve, and the fact remains that in our hospitals today we have around three times less medical cover at weekends. In our manifesto in May this Government committed to a truly seven-day NHS so that we prevent a repeat of the tragedy that happened to John Moore-Robinson.

Gisela Stuart: The Secretary of State is absolutely right that we need to address the fact that there seems to be less cover at the weekends. He is trying to circle that square without expanding the number of doctors and the services. He is thinning the service on Monday to Friday to bring more cover to the weekends. That does not solve the problem.

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to deal with that. We went into the election in May saying that on the back of a strong economy we were prepared to commit £10 billion extra to the NHS in real terms over the course of this Parliament. That was £5.5 billion more than the hon. Lady’s party was prepared to commit. In the last Parliament, when the increase in NHS spend was half that amount, we increased the number of doctors by 9,000, so we are increasing the number of doctors, but as we do so we need to ensure that we give the right care to patients.
	I want to give a word of caution to the shadow Secretary of State. The tragedy of John Moore-Robinson, the gentleman I have mentioned, happened not only on a Saturday, but at Mid Staffs. The last time the House discussed the difference between excess and avoidable deaths was under a Labour Government, when they tried to brush the problems at Mid Staffs under the carpet, saying that we should not take the figures on excess deaths too seriously because they were a statistical construct and different from avoidable deaths. I would have hoped that the Labour party learned the lessons of Mid Staffs and would not make the same mistakes again. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) may shake her head, but I expect voices in the Chamber to be a little quieter. I want to hear the Secretary of State, and I think all our constituents do. I understand that you might not agree.

Jeremy Hunt: Let us look at some of the facts. What is the most important thing for people admitted to hospital at the weekend? It is that they are seen quickly by a consultant. Currently, across all key specialties, in only 10% of our hospitals are patients seen by a consultant within 14 hours of being admitted at the weekend. Only 10% of hospitals provide vital diagnostic services seven days a week. Clinical standards provide that patients should be reviewed twice a day by consultants in high-dependency areas but, at weekends, that happens in only one in 20 of our hospitals across all key services.

Helen Whately: Is the Secretary of State shocked, as I am, that the shadow Health Secretary seemed to say that the NHS should continue as it is, and that she appears to deny the weekend effect, which means that people are dying unnecessarily?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I am shocked. I am really shocked about the suggestion that there is a difference between what is right for patients and what is right for doctors. The shadow Secretary of State spent a lot of time talking about morale. The worst possible thing for doctors’ morale is their being unable to give their patients the care they want to give.

Jonathan Reynolds: Does the Secretary of State not see anything perverse in making the case for a seven-day NHS—he has repeatedly done so—while drawing up a junior doctor contract that financially penalises doctors who already work evenings and weekends? How can that make any sense?

Jeremy Hunt: The contract will not do that. The contract we are proposing will give more reward to people who work the most antisocial hours. I will explain the details of that later.
	The shadow Secretary of State talked about academic studies, so let us look at what the academic studies on the weekend effect say. The Freemantle study, published in the British Medical Journal, which is owned, incidentally, by the British Medical Association, said in September that the mortality rate for those admitted to hospital on a Sunday is 15% higher than for those admitted on a Wednesday. It said the weekend effect equated to 11,000 excess deaths. Let us be clear about what that means. It does not mean that every one of those 11,000 deaths is avoidable or preventable—it would be wrong to suggest that. It means that there are 11,000 more deaths than we would expect if mortality rates were the same as they are on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS England medical director, called it
	“an avoidable ‘weekend effect’ which if addressed could save lives.”
	It is not just one study. In the past five years, we have had six independent reviews. Another study in the British Medical Journal,by Ruiz et al, states:
	“Emergency patients in the English, US and Dutch hospitals showed significant higher adjusted odds of deaths…on Saturdays and Sundays compared with a Monday admission.”
	The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges—the body that represents all the royal colleges—said in 2012 that deficiencies in weekend care were most likely linked to the absence of skilled and empowered senior staff and the lack of seven-day diagnostic services.

Norman Lamb: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to give way to my former colleague.

Norman Lamb: During my travels across the country, I recently spoke with the chief executive and the chair of an acute trust. They said that they have no difficulty at all with junior doctors and ensuring that there is cover at weekends; their problem is with consultants—and the Secretary of State has just made that point. Has he not chosen the wrong target?

Jeremy Hunt: Chief executives of trusts and NHS employers have been very clear that this is about reform of contracts for both consultants and junior doctors, because the reduction in medical cover at weekends happens with both the consultant and the junior doctor workforces. Also, as I will go on to say, it puts huge pressure on junior doctors at the time when they do not have senior support and the ability to learn from it, and that is exactly what we want to sort out.
	Junior doctors are not to blame for the weekend effect. The situation would actually be far worse without them, because they perform the lion’s share of medical evening, night and weekend work. In many ways, they are the backbone of our hospitals. However, the BMJ study this year showed that there is evidence that junior doctors felt clinically exposed at weekends, and nothing could be more demotivating for a doctor than not being able to give the standard of care they want for a patient.

Mary Creagh: The right hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the weekend effect and quoted Sir Bruce Keogh, his own NHS medical director. Is he aware that Professor Keogh has also said that
	“it is not possible to ascertain the extent to which these excess deaths may be preventable; to assume they are avoidable would be rash and misleading”?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, and I agree with that, but it would be equally rash and misleading to say there are no avoidable deaths. Professor Keogh was saying that lives could be saved if we tackled this. All these studies are saying that 15% more people die than we would expect if we had the same level of cover at weekends as we have during the week. Therefore, as he says, the moral case for action is unanswerable.

Jeremy Lefroy: The hospital to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier is in my constituency. The accident and emergency department has improved hugely over the past few years—well over 95% of patients are seen within four hours—and one reason for that is that it has consultant cover all the time. It is not open 24/7—we want it to be—but for the 14 hours a day that it is open, it has consultant cover all the time.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that this is a package designed to ensure that we eliminate the weekend effect, and it involves both junior doctors and consultants, because they both have their part to play.

Emily Thornberry: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress before taking any further interventions.
	The question for a Government and for a Health Secretary is this: when we are faced with this overwhelming evidence—six studies in five years—should we take action or ignore it? We are taking action. That is why in July I announced that we will be changing the contracts for both consultants and junior doctors as part of a package of measures to eliminate the weekend effect. If we believe in the NHS, and if we want it to be there for everyone, whatever their background or circumstances, we must be able to offer every NHS patient the promise of the same high-quality care, whichever day of the week they need it.
	Let me set out for the House what I have proposed. We announced ambitious plans to roll out seven-day services across the country, with better weekend staffing across medical, diagnostic and support services in hospitals, as well as better integration with social care and seven-day GP access. That will reach a quarter of the population by March 2017, and the whole country by 2020. For consultants, we proposed an end to the right to opt out of weekend working, replacing it with a maximum obligation to work one weekend in four. To its credit, the BMA’s consultants committee has agreed to negotiate on that.
	For junior doctors, we proposed to reduce the high overtime and weekend rates, which prevent hospitals from rostering enough staff at weekend, and increase basic pay to compensate. We have made a commitment that the pay bill as a whole would not be reduced, and today I can confirm that not a single junior doctor working within the legal limits for hours will have their pay cut, because this is about patient care, not saving money. Incidentally, I made it clear to the BMA at the beginning of September that that was a possible outcome of negotiations, in an attempt to encourage it to return to the negotiating table. Rather than negotiating, it chose to wind up its own members and create a huge amount of unnecessary anger.

Mark Spencer: Given the Secretary of State’s assurance, is there any reason why the BMA should not come back to the table and negotiate with him to solve this problem so that patients are safer at weekends?

Jeremy Hunt: There is no reason whatsoever. What was strikingly absent from the shadow Health Secretary’s comments was an entreaty to the BMA asking it to come and negotiate. Labour Members can play a constructive role in this, but so far they have declined to do so.

Emily Thornberry: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to continue with his plan to change the rules so that trusts that insist on doctors working unsafe hours can no longer be fined for doing so? It will help if he can assure us that those rules will continue and trusts will be fined if they break them.

Jeremy Hunt: They are not fines; they are perverse incentives to doctors to work unsafe hours. We want to go one better than that. We propose to stop hospitals requiring doctors to work five nights in a row or six long days in a row, and to bring down the maximum number of hours that hospitals can ask a doctor to work in any one week. On top of that, we have imposed the toughest hospital regime of any country anywhere in the world that comes down very hard on hospitals that are not providing safe care.

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Norman Lamb: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress before I give way again.

Norman Lamb: rose—

Jeremy Hunt: As the right hon. Gentleman is my former colleague, I will give way once more.

Norman Lamb: I want to ensure that I fully understand the commitment that the Secretary of State gave about not a single doctor losing out. I think he said that that is “provided they are working within maximum legal hours”. Does that mean people working up to 48 hours, which is the maximum working week under the working time directive? What about doctors who have opted out of that and are working 60 or 70 hours? Could they lose out?

Jeremy Hunt: It applies to all doctors working within the legal limit. If they opted out of the working time directive, it would apply up to 56 hours. For people who are working more than the legal limits, even after opting out, the right answer is to stop them working those extra hours because it is not safe for patients. But yes, that is the commitment to people even if they have opted out.

Sylvia Hermon: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I am going to make some progress, if I may.
	As well as reducing the maximum hours a doctor can be asked to work from 91 to 72 in any week—a significant reduction—and banning hospitals from requiring doctors to work five nights in a row or six long days in a row, as hospitals can currently make them do, we propose to ban the routine use of fixed leave arrangements that mean that some doctors have to give up to three months’ notice before taking leave, meaning that they miss out on vital family or personal occasions.
	We did not, and do not, seek to impose a new contract; rather, we invited the BMA to negotiate a new contract so that we could end up with a solution that was right for doctors and right for patients. However, because we had recently won an election in which a seven-day NHS was a manifesto commitment, we said that having tried to negotiate this unsuccessfully for two and a half years, we would ask trusts to introduce new contracts if we were unable to succeed in negotiations.

Sylvia Hermon: I have a specific point about Northern Ireland. Of course, health is devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I can assure the Health Secretary that junior doctors in Northern Ireland are absolutely furious about the proposed changes to their contracts. It would help if he could confirm that he is in regular direct dialogue with the Health Minister in the Stormont Assembly, Simon Hamilton MLA. I ask him not to reply that officials talk to each other regularly, because “Minister to Minister” is what I would like to hear.

Jeremy Hunt: We do have regular dialogue. I suggest that the reason doctors in Northern Ireland might be angry is that they have been listening to misinformation about what the Government in England are proposing, which has, very disappointingly, made doctors all over the UK very angry. I hope that the assurances I am giving, which I gave to the BMA last month and the month before, face to face and in letters, will encourage the hon. Lady to report to the doctors she mentions that the right thing for the BMA to do is to come and talk to the Government. Regrettably, the BMA’s Junior Doctors Committee has refused to negotiate since last June. Instead, it put up a pay calculator on its website that scared many doctors by falsely suggesting that their pay could be cut by between 30% and 50%. It has now taken that pay calculator down, but the damage to morale as a result of it continues.

Rachael Maskell: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jeremy Hunt: I will make some progress. Some people say that this is a battle between the interests of patients and those of doctors, but that is profoundly wrong. Doctors who are happy and supported in their jobs provide better care to patients, and the link between a motivated workforce and high-quality care is proven in many studies, as well as in hospitals such as that in Northumbria, where staff have become the greatest advocates for seven-day services since their introduction. Our proposed new system is intended to provide better support to doctors who work weekends, and make seven-day diagnostics more widely available across the NHS.

Simon Hoare: Given the clarity with which my right hon. Friend has addressed the principal concerns of junior doctors, does he expect the BMA’s Junior Doctors Committee to change its stance, come to the Department and restart negotiations, or will it continue to stall?

Jeremy Hunt: If the BMA is serious about wanting to do the right thing for doctors and patients, there is no reason for it not to negotiate with the Government to get the right solution. This is a test of how serious it is—my hon. Friend’s point is well made.

Rachael Maskell: This debate is reminiscent of 12 months ago and the “Agenda for Change”, when the Government refusal to negotiate with 1 million NHS staff, and caused industrial action and a strike. The same thing seems to be happening again. Will the Secretary of State take the shackles off the negotiations and enable the professionals to put their case on the table? Will he listen to them and let them lead negotiations?

Jeremy Hunt: That is exactly what I would like to happen, but it can happen only if members of the BMA walk through my office door—it is open—and sit down and start negotiating, which they have refused to do since last June. Just as it is wrong to pit doctors against patients, it is also wrong for the Labour party to pit the Government against doctors. In the previous Parliament, Labour wanted to cut the NHS budget, but we protected it. In May’s election we promised £5.5 billion more for the NHS than Labour did, and in the last Parliament a Conservative-led Government delivered 9,000 more doctors to the NHS, 1 million more operations a year, and 600,000 more people were referred for urgent suspected cancer every year.
	Because we are not stopping at that, and because we are passionate that the NHS should offer the highest standards of care available anywhere in the world, the Government have also been honest about the problems facing the NHS. Two hundred avoidable deaths every week is too many—it is the equivalent of a plane crash every week. Nor is it acceptable that twice a week we operate on the wrong part of someone’s body, or allow other “never events” to happen. In many of those areas the NHS is performing at or better than international norms, but that does not make such things any more acceptable. We want the NHS to be the first healthcare system in the world to adopt standards of safety that are considered normal in the airline, nuclear or oil industries.

Rehman Chishti: The Secretary of State said that we are open to problems being highlighted. May I thank him for what he did by putting hospitals into special measures? Medway Maritime hospital had the seventh highest mortality rate in 2005, yet nothing was done. Support is now being given to that hospital to turn it around. We are highlighting problems, but we are also introducing measures to fix those problems.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent support for his local hospital. It has had many troubles, but it is beginning to show signs of turning a corner. If we want to turn things around, we must first be honest about the problem.
	I welcome the shadow Health Secretary to her place. Her predecessor tried to minimise the care problems that took place under a previous Labour Government, and he described our attempts to put them right as trying to “run down the NHS”. I hope that she does not do the same. Labour used to be the party that stood up for ordinary men and women; it cared enough about them to set up the NHS, so that no one had to worry about getting good medical care, whatever their circumstances. People need to know that they can depend on our NHS seven days a week. Instead of making mischief about a flawed doctors contract that was introduced by a Labour Government in 2000, the hon. Lady should stand with us as we sort out this problem. Be the party not of the unions but of the patients who depend on high quality care, day in, day out. Professor Bruce Keogh talked about the moral and professional case for concerted action. Surely in that context, she might reconsider this rather ill-judged attempt to make party political capital out of a very real problem.
	Everyone who cares about the NHS should want the same thing. The hon. Lady should tell the BMA to get around the negotiating table, something she conspicuously failed to do. In doing so she would stand alongside the many independent voices calling on the BMA to return to the table and discuss a solution with the Government—the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, NHS providers and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. If she does not do that, the British people will draw their own conclusion about which party is backing the NHS with the resources it needs, which party is supporting hospitals to become safer at the weekends, and which party is standing four-square behind doctors and nurses in their ambition to deliver high quality standards of care for patients. There is only one party that can be trusted, one true party of the NHS, and that is the Conservative party.

Lindsay Hoyle: There will be a four-minute limit on Back Bench speeches.

Philippa Whitford: The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) described what a junior doctor is, and that is really important. Many people think that being a junior doctor is just for the first couple of years, and isn’t it character-forming to work a bit hard and not have a lot of money? However, in the NHS, which is quite a hierarchical beast, a junior doctor is a junior doctor all the way until they are not a junior doctor and they become a senior doctor: either a consultant, as I was for the past 19 years, or a GP. That means we are talking about people who might be in their 30s, with children, families and mortgages. They are not youngsters who are able to move around flexibly and have very few financial commitments. It is important that we remember that.
	It is obviously quite some time since I started as a junior doctor. More than 30 years ago, in 1982, we had absolutely no limits on hours. My light week was 57 hours; my heavy week was 132 hours. You just had no idea what your name was by the end of a weekend. It took more than 10 years of my career before the first new deal started to come in, in the early 1990s, and trusts or hospitals had to pay an additional premium to junior staff if they worked excessive hours. The definition of excessive hours at that time was still pretty lax, but it was the first step. It was tightened up in 2003, when the European working time directive came in. The Secretary of State talks about taking away those safeguards, but that he will replace them with something else. But with what? They have served us well. When trusts are in financial difficulties, the pressure on them to save money is likely to outweigh completely any little safeguard. The 48-hour working time directive does not come with punitive safeguards, and the financial one was important.
	It is important to remember that the basic pay is already for 7 o’clock in the morning to 7 o’clock at night, Monday to Friday. That is a pretty long day for most people. It is proposed that the time covered by basic pay should be extended to 7 o’clock in the morning to 10 o’clock at night and include Saturday. What many people do not know is that a junior doctor starts at under £23,000 a year—below the benefit cap we have been arguing about. The salary is made up largely of out-of-hours.

Jim Cunningham: Does the hon. Lady not agree that in any other walk of life that would be intolerable, yet we put up with this situation in the national health service? Secondly, does she agree we still have not seen the £8 billion the Government promised, during the general election, to put into the NHS?

Philippa Whitford: I totally agree with that.
	As mentioned on both sides of the House, people do not work in an NHS hospital to make a lot of money. It is not high up the list of ways for the smartest people in our country to make money; it is a vocation, which means we have a responsibility not to exploit them. The Secretary of State says that no one will lose money, but what will happen to the people who start next August? After the first hours change, when I started my surgical career in Belfast, the “two in three” rota—every third evening off and no weekends off for a year—was no longer legal, and the hospital henceforth considered extra hours to be voluntary service. The NHS is a hierarchical organisation, bullying exists within it, and the junior doctor is in a weak position. These safeguards have worked well for a long time, and I would be reluctant to see them go.

Catherine West: Does the hon. Lady agree that across the piece—nurses, doctors, everybody—there is a huge loss of morale in the NHS? It is down to us to stand up for the workforce and put them at the heart of our thoughts, rather than concerns about how it might look politically.

Philippa Whitford: I totally agree. I also agree with the Secretary of State about patient safety. There is no one in the profession who does not want a seven-day emergency service that is strong and responsive to the needs of unwell patients, but we keep moving from people who are ill to routine services. He has said we must not call them avoidable, yet he just referred to 200 avoidable deaths a week, which is exactly what Bruce Keogh described as “rash and misleading”, and people object to that. There are no excess deaths at the weekend; the issue is with people admitted at the weekend, usually for radiology or investigation. Scotland has been moving on this for the last decade, by working with the profession, not pulling out the pin and throwing a grenade.

Jeremy Hunt: For the sake of clarity, the 200 avoidable deaths are not about the weekend effect specifically, but come from the Hogan and Black analysis, which found that 3.6% of hospital deaths in England had at least a 50% greater chance of having been avoidable, which is separate from the weekend effect—the higher mortality rate among people admitted at weekends. None the less, where there are avoidable deaths—where death rates look higher than they should be—we have an obligation to do something.

Philippa Whitford: I agree that it is important to investigate, but it is also important to understand the cause of the problem. A lot of the problem at Mid Staffs was the ratio of registered nurses to patients. That was echoed by Bray in his review of 103 stroke units, which showed that additional consultant ward rounds at weekends had no impact on death rates, while a better ratio of registered nurses reduced them by a third. We need to know the problem before spending billions trying to solve the wrong thing.

Andrew Slaughter: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for busting this myth about weekend death rates—these might be sick people admitted at weekends who die within the 30 days. In fact, fewer people die in hospitals on Saturdays and Sundays than on other days. The Secretary of State is not giving the right impression of the figures.

Philippa Whitford: I agree.
	Since coming here, I have heard stories of people unable to access diagnostic imaging or to work up patients, but there is no argument about that from the profession. That is what we need to focus on, yet a lot of this seems to be about routine. There are fewer doctors at weekends because we do not do routine work. We have teams of people doing toenail and blood pressure clinics in the week. Professor Jane Dacre estimates that doing those at weekends would require 40% more doctors. We cannot do that. We need to make sure that hospitals at weekends have enough people and the right people to be secure, but junior doctors are already there—it is not they who are missing—and emergency services already have a consultant on call. We might need more discussion about their being physically in, but that is a discussion to have with the profession, whereas what we heard on 16 July, which gave the public the impression that senior doctors only worked 9 to 5, Monday to Friday, was very hurtful to the entire profession.

Grahame Morris: The hon. Lady is making some extremely powerful and relevant arguments. I wish to make a point about the importance of junior doctors in my region, having spoken to some of them at the demonstration on Saturday. They are essential to the functioning of the service. They have the option of going not only to the Antipodes but to Scotland, where these contracts do not apply. If we lose these valued staff, it could hurt my region more.

Philippa Whitford: We will roll out a red carpet somewhere on the M74 and welcome them with open arms. The progression and migration in Scotland towards robust seven-day emergency care has been happening through a dialogue, not through a threat to impose a contract.
	There are other things in this, such as the plan to change pay progression, which is currently on an annual basis, to recognise experience. That will be replaced with just six pay grades. Such a move will affect women in particular, because they tend to take a career break and they tend to work part-time, so they will get stuck at a frozen level for much longer. It may also be a disincentive to people to go into research, because they will be stuck on the same rung of the ladder for longer. We do not want that disincentive. We need to make sure that we are valuing how people develop and the experience they accrue along the way.

Mark Spencer: The hon. Lady is making a powerful case for dialogue. Will she join the Secretary of State in calling for the BMA to come back to the negotiating table or join the shadow Secretary of State in refusing to call for it to do so? Which will she do?

Philippa Whitford: There is no doubt that we require dialogue, but it must involve sitting down at a table without preconditions. What we had in July and through the summer was a threat of imposing a contract, instead of proper negotiation. That is where we should be trying to get to: both sides negotiating in good faith across a blank sheet of paper. The threat of imposition is what has hurt the junior doctors.
	There has also been talk of taking away the guaranteed income protection of GP trainees, there to try to keep them at the same level as they were, and replacing it with a discretionary payment. Such a payment can be taken away at any time—it can be cut and it can be changed. The Secretary of State aspires to have 5,000 extra GPs by 2020. We know from the BMA that one third of GPs—10,000 out of just over 30,000—are planning to leave, which means we need to find 15,000 extra GPs. Anything that is a disincentive for people to go into that profession is not serving the NHS.

Dawn Butler: Does the hon. Lady think the Secretary of State is an incentive or a disincentive to junior doctors?

Philippa Whitford: Sorry, I did not hear that. [Interruption.]

Dawn Butler: Conservative Members do not want me to repeat the question. Does the hon. Lady think the Secretary of State is an incentive or a disincentive to doctors?

Philippa Whitford: I think that how this has been handled is a total disincentive, but that could change. We could simply take the decision to move to negotiations without preconditions—without the threat of imposition. We are talking about a threat to impose changes to the terms and conditions of people who, in the past, routinely worked more than 100 hours a week, as I did. That is a ghost that haunts the NHS and it really frightens junior doctors.

Rehman Chishti: rose—

Philippa Whitford: I will give way one last time, but I need to make progress; otherwise nobody else will get to speak.

Rehman Chishti: I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady. She talks about her experience of working long hours. Does she think that what the Secretary of State has just said about introducing new limits on junior doctors’ working hours is the right way forward?

Philippa Whitford: What the Secretary of State has not explained is how, within the same pay envelope, there will be more people at weekends, but not working extra hours—and not having fewer during the week. At the moment, we have a circle that cannot be squared. We need to see the detail of how that can be done. If the vision is to have more routine work at the weekend, that would result in a massive uplift in the number of doctors, which we simply cannot afford. We are already haemorrhaging doctors. Acute physicians describe 48% of junior places as unfilled, with the figure for obstetrics being 25%. They can go anywhere. We heard that over 1,500 of them registered for certification for overseas work just last week. We need to be careful that we are attracting them to stay. They are the brightest and best in our society; they have chosen a vocation. We need to bring them to the table, but by offering to start with a blank sheet of paper—not threatening them. As has been said, they are not radicals, but people who want to do the best for their patients.
	I suggest that the Secretary of State and those working with him look at how they have spoken to both senior and junior doctors over this summer. Frankly, being new to this House, I found that to be quite shocking and quite disgraceful. We should draw a line under that and try to change the tone. We need to go forward and find a solution that is fair to junior doctors, fair to patients and safe—one that is not exploiting people and not threatening people.

Sarah Wollaston: I start by declaring a relevant personal interest in that my daughter is a junior doctor, and one of many hundreds who have moved to Australia to work. Because of that very clear conflict of personal interests, I shall abstain in this evening’s vote. I want to speak, however, because I have relevant personal experience, as before I came to this place I taught junior doctors and medical students for 11 years.
	I can tell the House that this dispute is about far more than pay. It is about junior doctors feeling valued. The junior doctors I used to teach, including F2 foundation year doctors, felt that they were not being supported at the weekends, disliked the inability sometimes to work in the same county as their partner and disliked obstructive attitudes about rostering. That presents us with an opportunity to bring all those issues into the negotiations in this current dispute.
	One thing I do know is that young people do not go into medicine because they are motivated by pay. I hope that the House sends a very clear message to junior doctors that we value what they do and are grateful for what they do on behalf of patients. What we must do is avoid a strike at all costs. A strike would be immensely damaging for patients. I would say to junior doctors that there is no meaningful industrial action that they can take that would not harm their patients. I urge them to step back from such a move. A strike would be damaging not only for patients, but for the professional reputation of doctors, and of course politically. That should not be the consideration. Our main consideration should be how we encourage junior doctors to walk back through the door of the Secretary of State’s office, as he has stated. The best way to do that would be to start again.
	Many elements of the dispute feel similar to the one we had in 2007, when I was teaching junior doctors, over the medical training application service—or MTAS, as it was known. It was a very unloved, unlovely scheme that collapsed, after a much-needed apology, in 2007. The Government of the day went back to the drawing board and started again. I think it would be right to do so on this occasion. We need to remove the barricades that are preventing junior doctors from walking back through the door. It would be right to take away the preconditions, the red lines and the threat to impose—and start again, looking at all the issues in the round.
	Junior doctors share many of the Government’s objectives. They want to improve care for patients; they recognise that shortage specialties in the NHS are a real issue and that if we are going to put patients first, we need to incentivise entry to specialties such as accident and emergency, general practice, psychiatry and so forth. We need mechanisms to make that happen. They recognise, too, the need to address variation across the NHS, including with respect to weekends, but we need to look at that in the round. It is not just about senior and junior doctors either; it is about nursing, access to diagnostics, being an outlier on a ward that someone should not be in because the hospital is over-full.

Kevin Foster: I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that one thing about which junior doctors want certainty is no longer having whole weeks of nights or having to work beyond 72 hours. The Government need to be clear about how they will achieve that.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. There is much to be welcomed in the new contract, but we need honesty about some of this. I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has given an assurance today that no junior doctor will be worse off, but I hope that when he sums up the debate, he will tell us what will happen to a junior doctor working 70 hours a week, perhaps in a specialty such as accident and emergency or anaesthetics. If the pay envelope is the same and some junior doctors will be better off, the maths indicates that some will be worse off and we need to clarify which ones. We need much more clarity, not just about whether an individual will be no worse off as a result of changing from one job to the next over the transition period, but about what will happen to the pay for that post over the coming years.
	While I welcome many of the elements of the junior contract, I feel that, because the debate has become rather toxic, we should take the opportunity to begin again to examine all the issues in the round, and ask junior doctors themselves to work with the Secretary of State in establishing how we can achieve our common aims on behalf of patients. We should also take the opportunity once more to welcome junior doctors and value everything that they do.

Andrew Smith: It is a pleasure to follow two such thoughtful speeches, and, in particular, the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). I congratulate her on her appointment, and on the vigour with which she put the argument.
	Three weeks ago, I went to a “keep in touch” meeting with doctors at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. Two hundred and fifty doctors turned up, and their anger at the Government’s threatened imposition of this contract had to be seen to be believed. They were so alienated that I had a hard job trying to persuade them that it was just the Secretary of State’s incompetence which was to blame, and not a malevolent wish on his part to dismantle the NHS.
	At a time when doctors, like other staff in the NHS, are working under such pressure, and when the Secretary of State knows that he needs to carry staff with him if further reform and efficiencies are to be delivered—including the better seven-day hospital services that we all want to see—it is beyond belief that he has simply stumbled into picking a fight with the core clinical work force in our hospitals, threatening to impose a contract that will leave some of them earning significantly less and many vulnerable to working significantly longer hours, thus risking a return to the dangers of the past.
	No one, including doctors themselves, wants to see this degenerate into industrial action, but, as with other groups of workers whom we do not expect to strike, a particular responsibility is imposed on employers and the Government to listen, to be fair, and to negotiate in good faith. That is why it is so damaging that the Secretary of State gives such a strong impression of doing the opposite: threatening when he should be listening, and using weasel words when he should be showing how assurances can be delivered. As the public well understand, the success of the NHS is hugely dependent on the dedication, good will and trust of its staff. By mishandling the contract in this way, the Secretary of State is putting all those at risk, and, once lost, they could be hard to win back.
	No one should be under any illusion about the damage that the contract—were it to be imposed in the way that the Government want—could do to patient care, and would certainly do to recruitment and retention in the English NHS, especially in high-cost areas such as Oxford. I already know of local GPs who have moved away, including one who found that he had a better quality of life as a locum than as member of a practice, and then found that it would be better still in Canada than in our NHS. At my meeting with doctors at the John Radcliffe, a show of hands was taken to find out how many of those who qualified would move to other parts of the UK or abroad if the contract were imposed. A sea of hands went up.
	If the Government want to make good the damage that they have been inflicting and settle the issue of this contract, it should not be hard. In his letter to the chair of the BMA junior doctors committee, the Secretary of State said:
	“I share exactly the same aims for the new contract as you do.”
	If that is the case, the way forward is clear. First, the Secretary of State should reopen negotiations, without preconditions, lifting the imposition of the contract. Secondly, he should keep the financial penalties that protect staff from working excessive hours. Thirdly, he should show flexibility on the reimbursement for Saturday working. Fourthly, he should give a clear guarantee that no junior doctor’s pay will be cut as a result of the contract. That is what our motion calls for: it would deliver a new contract with safety for patients and fairness for doctors. It is what the Government would do if they had any sense, it is what the public wants, and I urge the House to vote for it.

Charlotte Leslie: I welcome this debate brought by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) as a chance to offer some light, as opposed to the heat that has sadly dominated so much of this debate.
	The House has often heard me quote the thinker and poet T. S. Eliot when he warns of the folly of trying to devise
	systems so perfect that no one will need to be good.
	This speaks extraordinarily to the NHS. The NHS is not a system; it is the people who work in it. That is why it is so important that we nurture and value our NHS staff in the ways so brilliantly expounded by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—those staff who work day in, day out, and, as the daughter of a surgeon I can vouch, at weekends and on Christmas days, too.
	I was extremely concerned to hear the British Medical Association’s claims that this modernisation of the junior doctor contract would lead to dangerously long working hours and less pay for our junior doctors—cuts of 30%, it said. I began to look into this more closely. I noticed that the pay calculator had been taken down, but when I looked at the detail I became very surprised. In the proposals I could not see the kind of longer hours and the less pay scenario I had heard from the BMA with such certainty and to which many junior doctors, completely understandably, have been reacting with such worry and concern. I could not see anything approaching the authoritarian and draconian measures the BMA had led me to believe my own Government were imposing.
	At most, I think there are areas where we need very careful negotiation and clarity with a doctor membership body so that we can work with doctors—that is incredibly important. I would have thought the BMA junior doctors committee would be very concerned for that to happen.
	I cannot find evidence that the Government are imposing longer hours on doctors. What I did note was the new absolute limit on overtime worked, which is preventing dangerously long hours and those awful weeks of nights, and the current situation where doctors routinely work over the 48-hour working time directive often slightly off the record to get in the training that they need. I would have thought measures to tackle that would have been welcomed.
	I know that huge numbers of people work during Saturday daytimes, but there needs to be further discussion on the agreement of what constitutes antisocial hours for doctors on a Saturday. Again, I would have thought the junior doctors committee would have valuably contributed towards that, and in fact the Government say the same.
	To read the BMA submission we would think that less pay was a key aim of the whole exercise, but the plans make clear that there will not be an overall pay cut and that average earnings will remain the same. Yes, the distribution will be different to overcome the obvious unfairnesses in the system where a doctor working normal hours will get paid more than a doctor working antisocial hours, but I am not sure that is something to complain about. Yes, there will be a reward for progress as opposed to the time the doctor has been in training, but that is in line with many professions and I am just not sure that someone who takes longer in training to reach the same standard as a high-flyer should get paid more.

Helen Whately: I support my hon. Friend on that point. It is uncomfortable but true that in almost any profession outside the NHS if someone takes time out for parental leave the clock stops on their career progression. They gain other skills; they do not just press on with their career, but they can go back to it afterwards.

Charlotte Leslie: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In addition, I am just not sure it should be possible for supervisors with more responsibility to be paid less than those they are supervising. I am slightly confused about the BMA stance on this. When I spoke to it about the European working time directive, it assured me that it was not just time spent in training that mattered, but the quality of that training. Now in its submission it seems to have completely reversed that position and says that it is just time spent on the job that matters. That confuses me.
	As the Government accept, there is a need for discussion on how doctors moving between different specialities can have their pay protected, but that is again something on which we must absolutely enter into discussion with junior doctors. I plead with the BMA to come to the table. The consultation committee in the BMA has done that and I applaud it for doing so. A part of the drive to get more consultants in at weekends is to improve the quality of junior doctor training which has suffered under the European working time directive.
	I also note that one paragraph in the BMA’s submission states:
	“Much of the subsequent detail that has been discussed in the news was never fully outlined as part of the previous negotiation process.”
	That demonstrates that the Government are still completely open to talking about many things, yet the BMA almost seems to lament that fact. In the light of this, I simply do not understand why the BMA will not return to the table. I celebrated the BMA’s “No More Games” campaign. We do need to de-politicise the NHS, but I am really concerned that the junior doctors committee is bringing that laudable aim by the BMA, and the work on that which the BMA does, into disrepute.

Lyn Brown: Countless junior doctors have been in touch with me to say that they are worried and in despair about the Government’s threat to impose an unfair contract on them. They tell me that the dangerously long hours that the contract will introduce will be a threat to patient safety. Doctors tell me that rostered hours are not a realistic gauge of total working hours, and that reducing them will not prevent dangerous increases in working time.
	Sofia, an anaesthetist in my constituency, says:
	“A ‘normal’ rostered day starts at 7.45am and finishes at 5.45pm. In reality there is no such thing as a ‘normal’ day, because the clock strikes 5.45pm and it is impossible to walk out the door with an operation ongoing.”
	Doctors like Sofia are content to work longer hours out of a sense of duty, but they are deeply concerned by plans to remove the financial penalties placed on hospitals to prevent dangerously long hours. She describes the Health Secretary’s assurances as follows:
	“It’s a bit like trying to stop speeding on a busy road by lowering the speed limit, but at the same time getting rid of all the speed cameras, police and speeding fines.”
	What does all this mean for patient safety? I was contacted by another doctor, Keir, a paediatrician in a neonatal intensive care unit in West Ham. He cannot see how his team could be spread more thinly during the week in order to provide more doctors on Saturdays. He is rightly concerned that doctors would be at risk of exhaustion. He says:
	“High intensity specialties are particularly affected from a safety point of view. You don’t want any delay putting a three-month premature baby on life support. Putting in a breathing tube, getting a tiny line into tiny veins—all require skill and concentration. Any tiredness affects the swiftness and accuracy of these procedures.”
	Doctors like Keir are aghast at what the Government are telling them.
	Doctors are also deeply disheartened by the Government’s handling of the new contracts. One doctor, Simi, has told me:
	“The mood is grim in hospital at the moment. We feel under-appreciated and undervalued. We are not being misled by the BMA. We can read the facts and analyse them for ourselves.”
	Whatever the Health Secretary has said today, it is evident that some doctors will lose out financially. This uncertainty over pay is causing anxiety. Sofia says:
	“Come August 2016, I have no idea how much I will be paid, whether I will be able to afford to pay my bills or even spend time with my children.”
	I agree with Oliver, another West Ham doctor, who says:
	“Not one doctor should be taking home less pay than they do now.”
	This will have serious consequences for staff retention. Doctors are making plans to leave the NHS. Nick, a medical student in West Ham, says:
	“I studied medicine to become not just a doctor but an NHS doctor. Under the proposed contract, I’ll be left in the sad situation of being forced elsewhere.”
	That will be this Health Secretary’s legacy. Kirsty, a histopathologist, says:
	“The health secretary has been nothing but belittling and demeaning. He has suggested we have lost our sense of vocation. Imposing a contract on us and treating us like children rather than professionals is so wearing.”
	We trust these doctors with our lives and with our loved ones. Our NHS staff are truly phenomenal. They deserve nothing but the utmost respect, and they certainly do not deserve to have an unfair, unjust contract imposed upon them. The people in this country love the NHS. For their sake, the Government must put forward fair proposals, withdraw the threat of contract imposition and return to negotiations with the BMA.

Mike Freer: Finchley and Golders Green is served by Barnet general hospital and the Royal Free hospital, which is just across the border in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). In particular, the Royal Free is the largest hospital serving my constituency, and it is one of the largest and safest acute hospitals in London. It has the high security infectious diseases unit, which has recently been in the news for treating Ebola, and it is a major centre for research into immunology and transplants. Not surprisingly, it is a major teaching hospital.
	Many junior doctors who live in my constituency have contacted me and despite my best efforts, using the information provided by NHS employers and the Department of Health’s online pay model, they continue to be confused and believe that their pay will be cut. I have no doubt that the selective information from the BMA has not helped. I welcome the reforms in principle and the commitment to introduce a new absolute limit on the number of extra hours that junior doctors can work. Bringing an end to the week of nights and capping the extra hours are welcome, but most junior doctors in my constituency are simply not aware that that is what we propose.
	In fact, most of the junior doctors that I have seen believe that the reforms will increase their working week, leading to more fatigue and therefore jeopardising, not improving, patient safety. They believe that this will hamper the Secretary of State’s quite-right drive to improve weekend mortality rates. I say to my colleagues in the Department of Health that something is going wrong in the communication of this welcome reform.
	Let me turn now to a couple of issues that have been raised by junior doctors and that echo some of the concerns mentioned by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). On retention, the Royal Free is a major centre for research and yet Dr Renee Hoenkampf, who wrote to me, is concerned that those doctors who seek to go into research and to step away from the frontline will be penalised by being held back on their progression pay. Those doctors who choose to have a career break to raise a family will also be penalised. Both those concerns will impact on women more than on men.

Andrew Murrison: On that point, the BMA is making a case for current increments on the basis of experience gained. A career break will probably mean that there will not be any experience accrued. Does he therefore agree that the BMA needs to get its logic right?

Mike Freer: My hon. Friend is right that just getting pay progression for time served is not the right thing to do, and most organisations have scrapped it. However, we must avoid accidental penalties acting as a disincentive for women joining the workforce. We should not encourage this idea that women, or any person, should be penalised for taking career breaks or for stepping away from the frontline by taking part in valuable research. I gently ask the Minister to look again at that matter.
	When I met Dr Joseph Machta, a junior doctor in paediatrics, he said that, after consulting the Department of Health’s pay model, his pay would reduce by 15%. Like many junior doctors living in my patch—it is not a cheap part of London—he was concerned that he would no longer be able to pay his mortgage. Will the Minister look into that matter? I suspect that London’s junior doctors rely more than most on premium payments. While average pay across the UK may be neutral under the compensatory increase in basic pay, that may not be true in London. I would be interested to hear whether the Department of Health has done an impact assessment on London’s junior doctors and the amount of premium pay that takes up the wage bill in London hospitals. If many junior doctors in London are over reliant on premium payments to pay their bills—that may be a wrong thing to do because they are working too many hours, but that is a different issue—it is a matter that needs to be considered.
	It is not unusual to want to have contract terms changed to meet current needs. On that basis, I support the reforms, but I ask the Minister to look into those two issues that I specifically raised.

Joan Ryan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) on securing this important debate and on her powerful opening speech. As she will know, health services in my constituency have already suffered greatly at the hands of the Conservatives. Two years ago they downgraded Chase Farm hospital, axing both our accident and emergency and maternity services and breaking every promise they made to local people.
	Now they are seeking to implement changes to contracts that I believe are unfair on doctors and pose significant risks to patients, both in Enfield and across the country. That view has been reinforced by the number of doctors from Enfield North who have contacted me to express their serious concerns. Dr Irene Gafson is one of my constituents and has been a junior doctor for eight years. She took part in the march in London earlier this month and carried a sign bearing Nye Bevan’s famous words that the NHS
	“will last as long as there are folk left with the faith to fight for it.”
	Many Members may have seen the thought-provoking and insightful article she wrote for The Daily Telegraph after the event. Two things in particular struck me when I read her piece. The first was the deep sense of privilege she and her colleagues feel about being doctors. It is not just a job, but a vocation. These are hard-working, dedicated professionals who care passionately about what they do.

Paula Sherriff: I spent some time in a busy city hospital last week with doctors who told me that many junior doctors now feel so demoralised that there has been a flood of applications to receive the certification to go and work overseas, so much so that the department that deals with that process has had to take on extra staff just to deal with the number of applications. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is very worrying indeed?

Joan Ryan: Absolutely.
	The second point Dr Gafson highlighted was the level of disillusionment in the medical profession with the Government’s plans. She said:
	“Whilst the sense of solidarity and unity amongst junior doctors”
	on the march
	“was tangible to all, there was a much sadder force underpinning our mood...People who have invested years of passion into their work are feeling demoralised. This unique day that brought so many doctors together in one place really served to illustrate how dangerously low levels of morale amongst junior doctors have sunk.”
	Dr Gafson voiced her strongest criticism for the way in which these contracts had not been negotiated with doctors and how the proposals threatened the safeguards on working hours. Significantly, she voted for the Conservatives at the last election:
	“I trusted them with the NHS and I feel let down. I actually feel embarrassed”.
	Dr Gafson is not the only one. Another local doctor who does not wish to be named contacted me to express her grave concerns at how the changes could impact on the NHS as a whole. She said that in a meeting last week a significant number of her colleagues were discussing alternative career plans and many were considering a move abroad to practise in another country. She said:
	“If these reforms go through then the frontline specialties such as Accident and Emergency, General Practice and acute medicine will be hardest hit, and these areas are already undersubscribed”.
	She went on to say:
	“I am gravely concerned that if these changes go through they will signify the start of the dismantlement of the NHS.”
	The Secretary of State should heed those words. They are an indictment of how the entire situation has been handled. If what is being offered is a “good and fair deal”, as he has described it previously, how does he account for the upset and concern the offer has caused? Is he willing to publish in full the financial models being used to calculate the proposed changes to contracts so that doctors can know exactly what they can expect to be paid? If he is not willing to do that, junior doctors working evenings and weekends have every right to be concerned that they face a possible pay cut.
	Finally, is he willing to accept that removing the safeguards that penalise hospitals that force junior doctors to work in excess of their contract hours has the potential to overburden doctors and compromise patient safety?
	I therefore urge the Secretary of State to stop his continued and unwarranted attacks on the BMA and to get back to the negotiating table and offer a deal that is fair to doctors and safe for patients in the context of talks without preconditions.

Andrew Murrison: I declare my interest as a doctor, and a veteran of truly awful rotas of the 1980s, involving one in two very often—that is every other weekend, every other night on duty, as well as a normal working day, which I would not recommend to either patients or practitioners. Thankfully, they are a thing of the past.
	I welcome very much the Health Secretary’s statement today and the guarantees that he has given. On that basis, I am more than happy to support the Government this evening. However, I would say that we need to insist on evidence-based policy making. It is important to understand the difference between a causal effect and an association. My worry is that perhaps the Front Bench has been more influenced by Euclidean theorem than a proper understanding of statistics. My reading of the Freemantle paper and Professor Sutton’s remarks lead me to conclude that no causal link has been established between doctors’ rostering and excess weekend deaths. If we are serious about reducing weekend deaths, and reducing the difference in health outcomes between this country and countries with which we could reasonably be compared, which I know that my colleagues on the Front Bench are, we need to properly understand what are the drivers of those differences, and I do not think that junior doctors’ hours are a principal driver in the problem that we are trying to address today.
	I think it is also right to appreciate that we are heavily dependent on the good will of all doctors—consultant grades and junior doctors. Most doctors that I know work well beyond their contracted hours—I know I certainly used to when I was in hospital medicine—and in dealing with them and in communicating with them, we need to keep that in mind and not take that good will for granted.
	I very much regret the BMA action, and I very much regret the ballot on 5 November on strike action. The last time such action was taken was in 2012 on, ironically, the subject of pensions. It ended ignominiously and the only outcome was a reduction in the esteem in which the public held the medical profession. I would urge the
	BMA, armed with the assurances we have had today, to think again. I say “ironically” because, of course, the proposals, as I understand them to be, would increase core hours, which are pensionable—out-of-hours are not—and I have yet to see the BMA make any comment on that, or indeed reflect it in its pay calculator. Maybe a belated understanding of that has meant that it has chosen to take it down.
	In trying to reduce weekend deaths and in trying to reduce that gap between our health outcomes in this country and those in the rest of Europe, we need to be focused much more broadly than on junior doctors’ hours. I know the Health Secretary is trying to work out how we can best configure the health service of the future. It is a dynamic thing; it never is fixed in one place. In my opinion, part of that means looking at our NHS estate all the time to make sure that we are getting the best from our assets. In my opinion, it means concentrating our specialist services in larger, regional and sub-regional centres. Those centres find it much easier to roster junior doctors and to concentrate expertise in one place. I am talking about stroke, heart attack and upper gastrointestinal bleeding—all things where we do less well in this country than in countries with which we should be comparable.

John Glen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that in the rural communities in south Wiltshire that we both represent, there does need to be a certain minimum proximity in order for patients to be able to access their hospital with confidence?

Andrew Murrison: I agree with that, which is where networks come into our national health service, and making sure that we have specialist centres that can deliver the right outcomes for people, and that there are protocols to ensure that ambulance services take people to the right place at the right time, so that they can receive the treatment they need. What we cannot do is continue with the current situation, in which our constituents can expect lower life expectancy and health in later life than, say, French or German patients. That is not sustainable and it is not right. It means looking again at how we configure our national health service. It may mean some difficult decisions in some parts of our NHS, but that should not be a barrier to making sure that we do it right.
	What I would say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench is that this is not really about junior doctors; this is about consultant grades, who deliver the therapeutics and diagnostics in relation to upper GI bleeds, heart attacks and strokes. They are now, in our new NHS of the 21st century, at the coalface of delivery in a way that they previously were not. So, if I may say so, I would like a greater focus on consultant grades, perhaps at the expense of some of our junior doctors who are the principal subject of our debate today.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Eleanor Laing: It is obvious that there are too many people who wish to speak and not enough time left. We have only 40 minutes of Back-Bench time remaining. There is no point in people looking disappointed; there are only 24 hours in a day and this is how it is. We can debate all sorts of things but there is only so much time. I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes, and I trust that colleagues will be decent and considerate to each other and not take too many interventions. If they do take interventions, could they not take the extra minute that is added on? I call Norman Lamb.

Norman Lamb: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who made a thoughtful and valuable speech. As a principle, we must be willing to accept the importance of debating the reform of working arrangements if we believe that there is evidence that current arrangements are undermining the best possible patient care, and I know that junior doctors absolutely accept that view. But I have to say that I am not convinced by the Government’s arguments.
	I mentioned earlier that I had talked to hospital leaders, who shared their view that junior doctors’ arrangements are not the problem. It was striking, listening to the Secretary of State, that he referred to a shortage of consultants at weekends. It was notable also that when I talked to hospital leaders, they spoke of a concern that some senior consultants in some specialties make outrageous demands for additional pay for weekend work. There is a problem there, and I would support reform of that situation, but I am not convinced by the case for reform of the sort that the Government are pursuing. The Secretary of State also rightly talked about juniors being clinically exposed at weekends. Again, the issue is a shortage of consultants at weekends, not issues relating to junior doctors.
	I met some junior doctors yesterday and found them all to be very passionate and completely dedicated to the NHS. I found them to be not driven and motivated by pay. I have to say to the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), that junior doctors find it frankly insulting to be told that they have been misled by the British Medical Association. They are intelligent enough to make up their own minds, and they have done. The Secretary of State should choose very carefully the arguments that he puts to them. The Government must also recognise a basic reality—the contract will work only if it is attractive to junior doctors. If it is not, they will vote with their feet and do what the daughter of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has done and go to Australia—or Scotland or the United States—to work instead of in the NHS.
	The reform and extension of plain time gives rise to real concerns about its impact on emergency medicine, on acute medicine, on intensive care and on maternity services—those areas where there is a particular need for substantial evening and weekend working.

Rehman Chishti: I have immense respect for the right hon. Gentleman’s work on mental health. In relation to the shortage of specialists, does he agree with the Royal College of Psychiatrists that psychiatrists should be put in that category?

Norman Lamb: I totally agree, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
	Will the Minister clarify what the Secretary of State said with regard to no loss of pay for individual junior doctors because I fear that those may have been weasel words? He talked about working up to the legal maximum. Is he talking about working up to 48 hours or up to 56 hours? He has given no guarantee that those doctors who may still work 60 to 70 hours in a week will not end up losing their pay. It is very important that the Government are clear on that.
	The Government seek to extract too much from a limited pot of money. We all know that £10 billion is not enough to keep the NHS going until 2020. We need to work together. I repeat the Liberal Democrat call for a non-partisan commission to ensure that we achieve a new settlement for the NHS and for care, and to engage with the public and the workforce to ensure that we get this right.

Paul Maynard: Three minutes is never enough, but here I go. First, we have heard a lot about seven-day working and a seven-day NHS. That does not occur only within the hospital. I would like to restate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) in the Westminster Hall debate on the e-petition that, most important of all, we need to look at how we can reduce in the first place unplanned admissions to hospital from the community. Secondly, I echo what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) said. We here have a responsibility not to exploit junior doctors and their willingness, sense of vocation and commitment to the NHS.
	It is worth looking at some of the deficiencies of the 2003 contract. As I understand it, a doctor working 47 hours can be paid the same as one working 41 hours. That cannot be right. A doctor working daytime can be paid exactly the same as a doctor working only nights and late shifts. A doctor progressing to a post of greater responsibility might not get any extra pay for that. There are multiple flaws in the existing contract that need to be addressed as part of the growing trajectory towards improving terms and conditions each time we reassess the contract.
	I recognise that there is a desire on all sides to get back round the table, and I strongly urge all sides to do that. I hope it can be done, but there is no contract that I can see lurking in the Minister’s bottom drawer waiting to be unveiled. In the report from the Doctors and Dentists Review Body three scenarios were set out. There are a further six, I understand, in circulation and in preparation by the NHS Employers organisation. There is so much to discuss, so many alternative scenarios, that it would be a dereliction of duty for all sides not to get back round the table.
	We should note that in what has been proposed, by reducing the maximum number of hours to 72, there would be no more of the four nights in a row that some junior doctors have had to work, and no more seven consecutive nights on particular rota shifts. There is much that is positive in the contract, yet I recognise why there are concerns. I urge Dr Malawana who wrote to the Secretary of State to look again at what my right hon. Friend is seeking to achieve. There is clearly a willingness to discuss how to redefine daytime work, how to judge what we pay for Saturdays, how we change flexible pay premiums. There is so much that can still be discussed that we are missing an historic opportunity here to set in stone for another decade a much better contract and a much better set of criteria for fairer working practices for our very, very hardworking junior doctors.

Mary Creagh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
	I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, to her new position.
	I have three puncture marks on my left hand. They come from 2001 when I was admitted to accident and emergency suffering a life-threatening event, an ectopic pregnancy. It took four attempts before a junior doctor successfully inserted a line into my hand. He apologised to me and said, “I’m sorry, I’ve just worked for 24 hours without a break and I just can’t see straight.” I am grateful to that doctor, both for his compassion and for his honesty, and I will always be grateful to the junior doctor who wheeled me up to theatre at midnight and operated on me, saving my life.
	Such overwork is what led the Labour Government to change the junior doctors contract. Under that contract, employers face financial penalties if junior doctors work longer than contracted. This Government want to remove these vital safeguards in the new contract and, instead, ask employers to follow the working time regulations. But in medicine, mistakes cost lives. The safeguards need to be much stronger than generic working time regulations, especially as junior doctors work a number of extra hours over and above what they are contracted to work, as we have already heard.
	I have further concerns about the proposed changes. Currently, Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, which manages Pinderfields, Wakefield’s local hospital, carries vacancies in all specialties, like most other large trusts. Vacancies are particularly hard to fill in A&E, obstetrics, paediatrics and medicine.
	Junior doctors provide all types of patient care—emergency care to mothers in labour, care for new born babies, specialist elderly medicine, cancer care and surgery. We have heard that almost 3,500 doctors applied for paperwork to leave the UK and work abroad in the first 10 days after the Government announced their threat to impose the new contract.
	I have concerns that the contract will discourage junior doctors from gaining clinical experience and contributing to medical research. Currently, pay progression is an annual increment, irrespective of their stage of training. NHS employers want to change that. That will impact on doctors who work part time or who are taking maternity leave, because they will not get an annual increment at their stage of training, so will not get pay progression.

Cat Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mary Creagh: I will not give way.
	The Prime Minister said this morning that he was a feminist, but women junior doctors know that his warm words hide the cold reality of direct discrimination. Will the Minister tell us whether an equality impact assessment has been done on the proposals?
	Finally, we have discussed the weekend effect, but Fiona Godlee, the editor of the British Medical Journal, has written to the Secretary of State criticising him for misrepresenting the research. He must think again and both sides must negotiate.

David Morris: I rise to support our Secretary of State for Health. Far from the Opposition’s claims, the reforms he proposes will improve patient care and protect junior doctors on their shifts by ensuring that there are higher staffing numbers out of hours.
	I am disappointed that the British Medical Association, which should represent the views of junior doctors, has refused to meet the Secretary of State for Health to discuss the proposals. Instead, it has politicised the issue. One calculator on the BMA website—it has been taken down—led junior doctors to believe that their pay would be cut by 30%. That has never been the case and is not part of any proposal. As a trade representative, the BMA should be ashamed that it has been scaremongering on an issue that affects the heart of our NHS and patient care, instead of engaging with the process in a professional way.
	Over the past few weeks, I have seen all sorts of rumours circulating about the number of hours that doctors will be asked to work under the new contract, but the maximum number of hours they will be allowed to work will decrease from 91 hours to 72 hours. No junior doctor working full time will be asked to work more than 48 hours a week on average. The proposal does not return doctors to the time before the working time directive, when they slept on hospital floors. That was very unsafe. On the whole, the premise is to ensure that patient care is the safest it can be.
	Doctors working too many hours goes against the basic principles of what the NHS should provide: the best care in the world, free of charge. I support the proposal that Saturdays should become part of the working week. They are treated that way in many professions and attract no extra pay. The Government’s proposal is cost-neutral and there are no cuts. No one will lose out. Junior doctors will be better off, because they will have more support on all their shifts. Patients will be better off, because care out of hours will improve.
	I urge the BMA to listen carefully to the debate and to reopen talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. He is ready and waiting to discuss a package that works for all. Our NHS is fantastic, as are all our junior doctors who work in it. I urge the BMA to allow those young men and women to aspire to even greater heights, and to get around the table for a better NHS for all.

Marie Rimmer: We have a very real problem in recruitment and retention in our national health service. Hospitals and general practices are forced to recruit doctors from overseas and highly expensive locum and agency staff. The British
	Medical Association has described the plans as unsafe and unfair. My postbag is full of letters from junior doctors in the past weeks. Many of them feel that they are already overworked and undervalued. The threat of the imposition of the new contract does nothing to make that feeling better and only compounds it.
	One of my constituents, Elizabeth, was born in Whiston hospital, which is ranked the best hospital in the country—I am so proud of it. She has lived in St Helens her entire life and is now a junior doctor in the hospital where she was born, training to be a GP. Admirably, she wants to put something back in to her community, but she tells me her plans are at risk because the new proposals financially penalise those on maternity leave. She tells me that she will have an enforced pay cut of approximately 30%—I listened to what the Secretary of State said about that—which would leave her unable to pay her mortgage, which she carefully budgets for.
	She would also be unable to pay for the compulsory exams needed to complete her training. Sadly, that means she would be forced to take her skills elsewhere. She went on to tell me that other countries, such as Australia, can offer a better quality of life compared with what the new proposals mean for her. Given the very real prospect that she might default on her mortgage, she would have no choice but to move abroad with her family. Applications for certification to practise abroad are soaring. These proposals will also impact unfairly on female junior doctors, 80% of whom are part-time trainers, as pay progression will be slower for them; we will lose even more doctors as a result.
	I do not want to go back to the old days, when a junior doctor told me he fell asleep while with a patient—the patient had to wake him up. Another junior doctor was killed in a car crash on the way home after working for nearly 30 hours without a break. It cannot be proved that his working pattern was responsible, but nothing would convince his colleagues and family that that was not the case.
	We cannot afford to lose the doctors we are training. Not one hospital in the north-west would be able to balance the books in the next financial year. The clinical commissioning groups are facing enormous financial challenges. Hospitals can only get the money from the tariff from the Government and the CCGs, and it is not there. We cannot pay consultants seven days a week if there is not the money in the CCGs.

James Davies: As a doctor and BMA member, and having been a junior doctor until 2008, I have listened over recent weeks and months to medical colleagues who have articulated loud and clear their fears about what a new contract might bring. Of course, this is a contract for England and I am a Welsh MP, but some of my constituents work in the north-west of England, and we also know that the contract adopted in England is often reflected in the contracts adopted elsewhere in the UK.
	I have been concerned by the breakdown in the relationship between junior doctors and the Government, particularly as there is widespread agreement that a new contract is necessary. I have met the Secretary of State and the chair of the BMA’s junior doctors committee, Johann Malawana, and I am grateful to them for conducting sensible and reasonable discussions.
	Junior doctors and other NHS staff want to feel valued, because they work extremely hard, have large workloads and, like the rest of the public sector, have been subject to pay restraint. There have been multiple attacks from the media in recent years, and indeed from politicians, which frankly have been unreasonable. Some doctors and NHS staff have been voting with their feet and moving abroad. We cannot afford that.
	The Government have a duty to improve safety for patients at weekends and ensure that the NHS is affordable in challenging financial circumstances. It is evident to me that there has been some misinformation and unfounded fears about what is proposed in the new contract. The real difficulty with the current situation is that unless and until talks resume, there are in some respects no precise proposals to discuss, so it is very much a fear of the unknown. I believe that the main issue of concern is the threat to impose a contract. I understand how that threat came about, because two and a half years of negotiations led nowhere. I believe that that threat is now impeding the opportunity to resolve the current impasse.
	Let me look at the rationale behind a new contract. It includes: an attempt to increase rostering of doctors at weekend; pay scale flexibility, with premiums to support shortage specialties or geographical areas; a change from time served in annual increments to pay progression based on training grades; a reduction of the total number of hours worked by doctors each week; and better consultant cover at weekends.
	Of course, concerns have also been raised by the BMA. They include: the removal of financial penalties for hospitals that allow doctors to work excessive hours; and recognition of unsocial hours as premium time. We now know that no junior doctors are at risk of a pay cut. The BMA acknowledges that, in reality, compromise through discussion is required, but some of its current demands would effectively limit the ability for any new contract to be formed along the lines originally envisaged.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Opposition for bringing this very topical issue to the Floor of the House for consideration.
	Of course, we cannot be closed-minded about the need to reform large aspects of the state, but when reforms are blatantly of an ideological nature it is essential that the appropriate scrutiny is applied, and I welcome the opportunity to do so.
	My party, the Democratic Unionist party, believes strongly that an imposed contract does not represent the best way forward. We remain optimistic that the widespread acknowledgement that the existing contract is not fit for purpose will provide sufficient incentive for all parties to ensure that UK-wide agreement can be achieved. I commend the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) for their very cohesive contributions setting the scene for this sensible, pragmatic and rational route, and I hope that others can join in pushing the House in that direction.
	We cannot play politics with the future of such an essential part of our health service, nor with hard-working, aspirational young people who have, in many cases, worked hard their whole lives just to enter the medical profession. Consequently, we must encourage constructive engagement between Government and junior doctors’ representatives with a view to achieving a positive outcome that underpins safe working practices as well as delivering the highest safety and quality of care for patients.
	The current proposals seek to improve something by taking from it. They seek to make improvements that, frankly, cannot be made in a safe manner without increasing investment. It is not just the BMA making noises over these proposed contracts; a tidal wave of stakeholders has weighed in voicing concern. The only way forward is the sensible, rational and pragmatic cross-party debate that my party and others in this Chamber want to see. Such matters are simply beyond politics. Our young people’s futures are at stake, as is the safety of our citizens when treated by the NHS. We all need to come together, work out what is right, and make an agreement.
	Although the Department of Health in London is responsible for these negotiations, Department of Health, Social Security and Public Safety officials from Northern Ireland have been engaged in ongoing discussions with local BMA junior doctor representatives to assist in identifying and understanding any issues particular to Northern Ireland. We need to find the middle ground so that, sensibly and positively, we can balance the concerns from the different parties involved and come up with a sustainable long-term solution to this issue. The DUP recognises the vital role played by junior doctors in our health service locally and trusts that an outcome can be achieved that appropriately recognises the important contribution that these dedicated professionals make to society in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mark Spencer: I am delighted to be able to take part in this most important of debates.
	It is worth saying at the outset that the most important issue we face when talking about changing these contracts is patient safety. We do well to recognise that our No. 1 priority should always be patient safety, and about the service that the NHS delivers to the patients who require its health and assistance at the most important time of their life. In order to deliver the improvements, level of service and safety that we require, we need to have an engaged workforce who are willing and enthused about their work. It is important to recognise the challenges that NHS staff face and the long hours that they have delivered over a number of years, putting themselves at great risk, frankly, in working what would be regarded in any other industry as silly hours. We clearly need to change those working practices to make sure that patient safety is once again brought right to the top of the agenda.
	It is important to recognise that these negotiations are not about cash. This is not about saving money or changing the system so that the Government can spread things thinner; it is about delivering an NHS service over seven days of the week to make sure that when someone has that moment when they need the NHS to step in to save their life or to help them, the service is there and able to deliver.
	Junior doctors currently receive between four and five incremental pay rises, depending on the time they serve. In most other industries, increments in pay should be about qualifications and the way in which someone has worked through them, not simply about the amount of time they have served.
	We must get to a point where we can deliver a seven-day NHS and eradicate the weekend effect. As hon. Members have mentioned, some patients are starting to change the way in which they engage with the NHS because they are concerned that, if they are admitted on a weekend, that will affect the care they receive. It is important to ensure that that does not happen. There will inevitably be changes to work patterns, and current contracts will have to change. At the same time the Government will ensure that there is extra pay for time that doctors work at weekends.

Sue Hayman: The Scottish Government have said that they will reject this new contract for doctors, and therefore doctors working in Scotland will not be affected by the reforms to pay and conditions. My constituency is in the far north of England, so this issue is of concern to me and my constituents. We already struggle to access decent healthcare in the county—particularly at our acute hospitals and Cumberland infirmary—due in large part to huge problems with the recruitment and retention of doctors.
	Many people in my constituency already travel long distances to access the kind of treatment that they ought to be able to get much closer to home. If Scotland opens its doors to junior doctors from England who feel threatened by this new contract, that will have serious implications for my constituency and other constituencies on the Scottish borders. We already know—it has been discussed in this debate—that there is a problem with keeping doctors in the UK and stopping them moving to other countries such as Australia. If a doctor is working in Carlisle at the infirmary, and all they have to do is move to Dumfries, surely that is a lot more attractive and easier than emigrating to Australia.
	As MPs we appreciate the sacrifices that come with working long hours, and the stresses of difficult decisions and the impact on our families. Surely, then, we should appreciate the highly skilled work that our doctors do, on top of the kind of work that we have to do, and we should respect and value their huge contribution. It disturbs me that the Government have lost the confidence of so many in the medical professions. While that lack of confidence continues, we will never resolve issues surrounding the recruitment and retention of professionals and junior doctors in our health service, and we will never resolve the problems experienced by my constituents in accessing the quality care to which they are entitled.
	If this contract goes ahead, I have a genuine concern that not only will we fail to recruit the junior doctors we need, but we will lose those we have as they go over the border and into Scotland. I urge the Minister to consider that point. Has that impact been taken into account? Have the Government considered the potential loss of doctors to Scotland? I urge the Minister to look at the issue again.

Maggie Throup: At the election, the Conservative party promised to deliver a seven-day a week NHS, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is working hard to deliver a package of reforms, including the contractual changes under debate. As a former NHS worker, I know that junior doctors, like all those who work in the NHS, are dedicated to the service of patients. We owe them a great debt, and it is only right that they are rewarded fairly—something that I believe this new contract seeks to achieve.
	It is time to dispel some of the mistruths about the updated terms and conditions that have been peddled by the Labour party and its lobbyist allies outside the Chamber. On pay, the facts are now clear. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has made it clear today that no junior doctor will be worse off as a result of the new contracts.
	In terms of pay progression, the move away from an automatic rise for years served and towards increases linked to career progression through training grades and levels of responsibility must be welcomed. This will help to bring doctors in line with the industry standards of almost all other professions and see pay increases awarded fairly and on merit, rather than simply on how long a person has been in post.
	Some plain time working will increase because of the changes, but there will be a new maximum working week of 72 hours, down from the current maximum of 91 hours. In addition, no junior doctor working full time will be expected to work on average more than 48 hours a week, and new limits on the number of nights and long shifts worked will be introduced. Surely these measures will provide a better work-life balance for our junior doctors and allow them to plan their time off with some certainty.
	It is deeply concerning that the BMA has refused to negotiate on contract reform and has instead turned to the threat of strike action. Strikes, especially in vital public services such as health, are never in the public interest and serve only to detract from the valid points made by trade union members. I therefore urge the BMA to suspend the imminent strike ballot, get back around the negotiating table and start making some real progress with the Heath Secretary to secure a fair deal for their members, while securing patient safety.
	A Government who takes the difficult decisions rather than what is politically popular is, by its very nature, a responsible Government. As a Conservative Government, we are taking those difficult decisions so we can build a stronger and more sustainable NHS for the future.

Yasmin Qureshi: In order to save paper, I am going to read out an email that comes from a doctor in my constituency. It would be great if those responding to the debate dealt with the concerns that doctors have raised and told whether they consider their concerns to be right or wrong.
	In essence, the junior doctor says the proposed changes will mean that doctors who work shifts of up to 11 hours will be entitled to only a 20 minute break; an NHS trust will no longer face penalties for introducing unsafe working rotas; and there will be a change in description of what are called sociable working hours. For junior doctors, sociable working hours will now be from 7 am to 7 pm, Monday to Friday, and 7 am to 10 pm on Monday and Saturday. That means that 9 pm on Saturday will be considered to be the same as 9 am on a Tuesday morning. That cannot be right.
	The proposals will lead to a decrease in doctors’ salaries. As my junior doctor says, “Contrary to popular belief, we do not earn a lot of money. We start at £22,600 a year after five to six years of hard training and we rack up a debt of £40,000. We work a lot of hours.” The £22,600 figure translates to £10.65 an hour. Junior doctors hold an incredibly responsible job for that amount of money. Changes to pay progression will mean that if they leave the NHS to take up either training or maternity leave, they will not receive the pay rises due to them. In addition, if they change specialism, they will start from the bottom of the pay scale again—all their experience will count for nothing. Patient safety will be compromised and to suggest that that will not happen is plainly wrong.
	The junior doctor’s email goes on to state, “We have to move jobs every three to six months. We struggle to settle anywhere and put down roots. We love our jobs and that’s why we sacrifice so much to be doctors, but this new contract is bullying, undermining and undervalues the doctors in our country.” Many doctors may well leave the profession. He says that that is the last thing they want to do, as they love the NHS and they want to serve the NHS.
	The suggestion has been made that the information presented by doctors is wrong, or that they are worrying unnecessarily. If that is the case, I would really like an answer to every one of the questions we have raised. We must also be mindful of the fact that many doctors are leaving the United Kingdom. They are going to Australia and to New Zealand, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) said, they may go to Scotland.

Andrea Jenkyns: It is important to make the point that these reforms are categorically not about saving money—their impact on the pay bill for junior doctors will be cost-neutral—so any suggestion that they represent a pay cut for junior doctors, as The BMJ has claimed, is dishonest. Junior doctors’ basic pay will increase, as will their pension contributions, and they will be awarded pay rises for progression, rather than simply time served, which is in line with most other industries.
	NHS employers, who are part of the NHS Confederation, the only body that speaks on behalf of the whole healthcare system, have said in a briefing note that the previous increases, linked to time served, were unfair and did not reflect real progression in terms of increased skills and greater responsibility. The world has changed. People are living longer and have busy lives, and our population is increasing, meaning there are pressures on our health service that were not there 10 years ago. NHS employers have also said that the current contracts are not fit for purpose.
	Doctors provide a vital public service, but the NHS must adapt to the needs of the people they serve. This means we need more services available at weekends and in the evenings, and we need doctors to give people the peace of mind that comes from knowing they can get the help they need when they need it.
	Opposition Members claim that the reforms will have a detrimental effect on patient safety, but what is safe about a young trainee medic working the maximum 91 hours per week? The reforms will drastically reduce this to 72 hours in seven consecutive days, meaning we will be working our new doctors less hard, while striving towards the seven-day NHS the Government were elected to deliver.
	I would like to turn to some of the concerns raised in the BMA’s briefing document. On page 3, it claims that the reforms will not protect doctors from having to work “dangerously long hours”. As I have said, the reforms will reduce the number of hours junior doctors have to work and introduce new safeguards on work-life balance by ensuring that all work schedules are mutually agreed between doctors and employers. No junior doctor will be expected to work more than a 48-hour week or more than four consecutive night shifts, and thanks to the Government’s reforms to childcare all working parents with three to four-year-old children will have access to 30 hours a week of free childcare. The rise in childcare costs claimed by the BMA are therefore a fallacy.
	In conclusion, these reforms will bring doctors’ contracts into line with modern lives and working practices. They are important and right. They will improve outcomes for patients, which is the most important thing, and improve conditions for junior doctors. I welcome the Government’s amendment to the motion, and I implore all colleagues from across the House to follow us into the Lobby this evening.

Grahame Morris: I would like to relay some comments made to me when I participated with other colleagues in a demonstration in Newcastle attended by about 5,000 junior doctors. I had the great honour to be in the company of Dr Rachel King, a dedicated professional from South Tyneside district general named “doctor of the year” for her outstanding contribution in the field of care of the elderly, and some of her colleagues. I was struck by their commitment. They love the service, they want to protect it and they want to see their profession valued, and to that end they asked me to make a few points today.
	For them, this debate is not about money, although I take issue with the claim from some Members that the reforms are cost-neutral and that doctors will not lose out. That might be the case overall, but the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made a really good point: some individuals might lose out. They pointed out that junior doctors, en masse, do not support the reforms. These are clever people—the cream of the crop—and we should listen to them. They know how the service works and how it should be reformed.
	They also pointed out that the reforms could increase the danger to patient safety because they might well not solve the problem of junior doctors working longer hours. As colleagues have pointed out, including the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the protections currently in place are to be removed, yet we have not had an assurance that something else will be put in their place. As we all know, tired doctors make mistakes. We need to address this issue about discouraging career breaks. Many junior doctors are women who leave to have children. Having spent a great deal of money on training them—the Secretary of State may be able to tell us the figure, but I believe it is in the order of £200,000 or £250,000—we want to encourage them to come back into the profession. There are concerns about not having enough people going into specialist areas.
	We need to address the issue about recruitment and retention. Members representing constituencies in the north of England have touched on the issue of how attractive it would be for people to go to Scotland where the new contract does not apply. Over a period of two or three days, about 1,300 GPs made an application for the certification to practise abroad. That should be a real concern when we are having difficulty recruiting and retaining GPs. There is also a knock-on effect in general practice, but I will leave it there, given the shortage of time.

Mr Speaker: We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Matt Warman: My wife is a junior doctor, an F2 currently working in A&E in one of London’s busiest hospitals. I could therefore start by thanking the Secretary of State for livening up my evenings, some of my afternoons and some of my mornings. Instead, I wish to start by saying that however hard colleagues in this place may think we work, precious few of us, as politicians, will ever really understand what it is like to work 10 hours a day and longer, when there is no time to eat, drink or even use the toilet, all while making decisions that are vital for patients and where a single error is both life-threatening and career-ending. Too many doctors feel that the current health service works despite the existing outdated systems, rather than because of them. That is why I hope all parties agree that reform is vital.
	The fact that people are working in such intense conditions goes some way to explaining the intense passion that has surrounded this debate. Doctors not only deserve better than the contract they are currently on, but they deserve better than the negotiating process that has turned serious attempts at reform into a debacle where a vacuum has been filled by knowing misinformation from the BMA. Although it is hugely frustrating that the BMA has told many people, wrongly, that they are in line for a 30% pay cut when many will get a 15% pay rise and that many now think the Government want to impose longer working hours when in fact they will be cut, it is understandable. I have seen precious little attempt at genuine honesty from the BMA, but nobody should forget that the union has stepped into a vacuum, and that is why I hope the BMA will come back to the table and negotiate.
	We need as little politics in the NHS as possible. We surely need to accept that doctors, however angry and however misinformed, have a commitment to their patients that transcends their commitment to any one hospital, any union or any political party. The low morale that has persisted in the NHS since last winter has not been helped by a lack of negotiation, and it will not be helped by the exhausting anger of a strike. I would like to see a contract that entices people into specialties such as A&E and being a GP, in part because the latter will see fewer visiting the former, and which acknowledges that working on a Saturday morning is already the norm for thousands but says that working late on a Saturday night is distinctly antisocial. Above all, I would like to see the mature approach from the Labour party, the BMA and all those concerned that will put the NHS on a sustainable footing. We have acted in good faith and I hope that the Labour party will see that and not seek to undermine the health service to which we are all indebted.

Rupa Huq: My constituent Dr Amy Di Marco, specialist registrar in general surgery, says that the term “junior doctors” is pretty misleading. She says
	“in fact it applies to all those who are not GPs or Consultants and therefore includes many doctors who, like me, are nearing 40 (or over), with several years of experience and with responsibilities for patients as well as their own families.”
	These are not work experience kids making the tea; they are serious professionals. They are highly qualified individuals who need commensurate remuneration and conditions that recognise that fact. In the areas of general practice, nuclear medicine, chemical pathology, emergency medicine, psychiatry, learning disabilities— the list goes on—we have a recruitment and retention crisis in any case, so these changes to contracts are not going to make the situation any better and risk exacerbating it. Junior doctors face the removal of the obligation on hospital trusts to safeguard the hours worked and the hiking up of plain time from 60 to 90 hours a week.
	On 5 November there will be the ballot to strike. The BMA states that this is not a decision taken lightly. Indeed, being forced to work at weekends tending to patients on the brink of death after staying up all night cannot be good for anyone. There are also serious concerns that this proposal would disadvantage those on maternity pay or sick leave, employees working reduced hours or those doing research, yet this work pays dividends for the future and pioneering research on incurable diseases might save the NHS. All those people would be disadvantaged because their safeguards are being removed at a stroke.
	This summer, we all saw the “#I’m in work, Jeremy” campaign on the promise for a seven-day NHS. It is happening already. I know this; I was born in Queen Charlotte’s hospital on a Sunday in 1972. Bolstered weekend care is obviously a good thing, but not if it means already stretched personnel being spread even more thinly, and not if it is unilaterally steamrollered through without adequate staffing and resources.
	My constituent, Dr William Stern, neurology registrar— he has been in the Public Gallery since 4 o’clock—told me that he was not optimistic because of
	“the current funding crisis…increasing deficits in most hospitals…targets being missed”
	and junior doctors “threatening to strike”—something he does not want to do. I urge the Government to think again and end this stalemate. I urge all MPs to back the motion.

Andrew Gwynne: We have had a comprehensive and powerful debate, with 23 speakers and many more Members who would have liked to contribute if we had had more time. I would particularly like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer), for Workington (Sue Hayman), for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq); the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); and the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie), for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), for Erewash (Maggie Throup), for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns).
	Members of all parties have spoken with great passion and praise for our junior doctors, who work tirelessly to deliver good quality services—despite the challenges they face in an NHS that is increasingly under pressure and under strain.

Andrew Slaughter: rose—

Andrew Gwynne: I do not have time to give way, I am afraid.
	I echo those sentiments of sincere thanks, but we have heard of junior doctors who already work weekends, already work nights, already work holidays and give their all for their patients. Despite all this, the junior doctors now face a situation that has left them feeling deflated, demoralised and devalued.
	Patient safety has been a key theme of today’s debate. Some Members have valiantly leapt to the Health Secretary’s defence, but those voices have been far outnumbered by Members who are deeply concerned that this contract is unsafe for doctors and unsafe for patients.
	Members have argued that the removal of the financial penalties that apply to hospitals that force junior doctors to work unsafe hours risks taking us back to the bad old days of overworked doctors, too exhausted to deliver safe care. The BMA says this safeguard, which is built into the current contract, has played an important role in bringing dangerous working hours down. Removing this financial disincentive to overworked junior doctors is extremely alarming, especially at a time when junior doctors are already coming under an enormous amount of pressure and strain. If the Health Secretary would just listen, he would hear junior doctors shouting loudly and clearly that they cannot give any more.
	Many Members highlighted the protests and marches that have taken place throughout the country in recent weeks. We had only to catch a glimpse of the placards that were waved as thousands of junior doctors marched against the contract to understand that those doctors now fear for their own health and well-being. I was struck by one banner which read, “I could be your doctor tomorrow, or I could be the patient”, and those doctors’ concerns have been echoed by many Members today. How can the Secretary of State possibly say that he is acting in the interests of patient safety if the very people who work in the NHS say he is putting safety at risk?
	Another argument that has been advanced today is that the contract is necessary to ensure that our NHS works seven days a week. Not only does that argument do a huge disservice to our NHS staff who already provide care seven days a week and 24 hours a day, and reveal just how out of touch some Conservative Members are with the realities of working on the frontline in our NHS, but it is wholly inaccurate. If this junior doctor contract were imposed in its current form, it would have the opposite effect, as many independent clinical voices have warned.
	It is a bitter irony that the problems that the new junior doctor contract was supposed to be trying to address when it was originally proposed back in 2012—the need to introduce better pay and work-life balance—are the very problems that will be made worse should the contract go ahead in its current form. In letters to the Secretary of State, the presidents of a number of royal colleges and faculties have made it very clear that they share those concerns, but he presumably thinks that they too have been misled.
	The Secretary of State said that he did not intend to cut the pay of any junior doctor, but his sums simply do not add up, and everyone can see through the spin. No one with a GCSE in maths can believe that no doctor will be worse off as a result of the new contract. Let the right hon. Gentleman come to the Dispatch Box in the minute that I have left, and answer this question. To what percentage of junior doctors currently working within the legal limits will what the Secretary of State has said today apply? Is it 50%? Less than a quarter? What is it?

Jeremy Hunt: All of them.

Andrew Gwynne: In that case, I ask the Secretary of State to explain this. If the pay envelope is not increasing, and if the pay is not being reduced, how can these sums add up? They just do not add up, and I suggest that he go back to night school and learn some basic arithmetic.
	We know that the BMA has been conciliatory today: it has offered to speak to the Secretary of State again. I ask him, please, let us take this down a notch. Let us get him talking to junior doctors again. The simple fact is that these are the junior doctors who work in our A & E; these are the junior doctors who work in every department of every hospital on the frontline. They come in early and leave late, they already provide care for seven days a week, 24 hours a day, and they deserve a lot better than this Government.

Ben Gummer: Junior doctors form a critical work force in our national health service. They are critical in the truest sense of the word: they are indispensable to the care of NHS patients. They work around the clock, and they are crucial to the cure of millions of people every year. That was recognised in the powerful speeches that have been made today, not least the very personal speeches made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). It is clear that every Member appreciates the central importance of junior doctors, and the extent of their training was made plain by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).
	The critical importance of junior doctors makes their career unique. Few professions are so rewarding, but few are so challenging. I know from my own experience in hospital and from listening to junior doctors how many strive to provide the very best care, how they devote themselves to advancing their knowledge and level of training, and how they frequently make sacrifices in their private lives that others in comparable professions are not asked to make. That is why I understand why there is such a sense of frustration and anger when junior doctors are told by a trusted source that they will soon be asked to work more hours for less money. I know it will be of small consolation to them, but we on this side of the House are as frustrated because we have always recognised in the contract negotiations that we have initiated with the BMA that no such situation would arise.
	The assurances that my right hon. Friend has made in a series of letters over the past few weeks, and the assurance he has given today that no junior doctor working within the legal limits in their current contract will lose money as a result of these changes—

Heidi Alexander: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Gummer: I cannot because I have to conclude.
	They are precisely the offers that were made privately both by the Secretary of State and negotiators in their discussions with the BMA. Our frustration is compounded by the fact that right from the beginning of this process, we have sought in the new contract to eradicate the slew of injustices in the current contract which make life unfair, and in some cases unbearable, for junior doctors.
	Let me give a few examples raised by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). It is unfair that doctors who take time out for valuable medical research receive precisely the same increments as colleagues who might take time out to do something completely unconnected with their training and with service to the NHS, and the same increments as those who take time out altogether from the health service, working only part-time perhaps to develop a career in business or another field. They retain the same increments and basic pay through their career as the doctor who works diligently five, six, sometimes seven days a week, progressing through their training, passing their exams—yet getting exactly the same level of pay as the doctors who do not.
	The greatest injustice arises for doctors from the perverse incentives in this contract—for example, hospital management choosing to use the current contract to avoid difficult decisions in rostering staff, paying doctors to work unsafe hours rather than getting to grips with the roster they should be putting in place to ensure safe care for patients.
	Let me make it clear to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who spoke for the Labour party, that the reductions so far since the 2000 contract are a result not of the penalty payments put in place as part of that contract, but of the working time regulations which have made a significant impact on the working hours of doctors, and quite rightly so. Does he not see the logic of his own argument? There are still doctors in the national health service who are working dangerous hours despite the fact that there are penalties in place to stop them doing so. By extension, the only way we can ensure that we have a proper, safe working environment in the NHS is to ensure, once and for all, that in contract and through review, and by exposure to regulatory bodies, junior doctors are not permitted to work unsafe hours. When we are asked whether we back the mis-statements by some of the people involved in this debate, or whether we encourage people to—

Rosie Winterton: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No.36).
	Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.

Main Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 260, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 32(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
	Question agreed to.
	The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government’s commitment to delivering seven-day hospital services and saving lives by combating the weekend effect; notes the British Medical Association’s (BMA) decision to walk away from negotiations to reform a contract which all sides acknowledge is not fit for purpose; further notes the Government’s proposed introduction of new contractual limits which protect staff from working unsafe hours and the commitment that average junior doctors’ pay will not fall; and calls on the BMA to put patient care first, to choose talks over strikes, and to return to negotiations.

Fabian Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You might recall that on Monday you granted me an urgent question about the arrests of a Chinese dissident, who is now a British citizen, and two Tibetan students following demonstrations against the Chinese President during his visit last week. Can you advise me whether there is any way in which I can record the fact that all charges have been dropped against the two students and the dissident Chinese British citizen?

Mr Speaker: There is, and the hon. Gentleman has found it. On reflection, he will know that he has found it. The matter is on the record for ever thanks to the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman.

Fabian Hamilton: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We will leave it there.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	committee of Privileges

Ordered,
	That:
	(1) Standing Order No. 148A be amended as follows:
	(a) line 4, leave out “ten” and insert “seven”
	(b) line 5, leave out “five” and insert “three”
	(c) line 10, leave out “consisting of no more than seven Members,”
	(d) line 29, leave out “the”
	(e) line 30, after “Privileges” insert “and of former Committees of Privileges”;
	(2) Standing Order No. 149 be amended as follows:
	(a) line 64, leave out “the”
	(b) line 65, after “Privileges” insert “and of former Committees on Standards”;
	and
	(3) Kevin Barron, Sir Paul Beresford, Tom Blenkinsop, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Dominic Grieve, Tommy Sheppard and Jo Stevens be members of the Committee of Privileges.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Standards

Ordered,
	That Mr Geoffrey Cox be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Tom Blenkinsop be added.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Mr Speaker: I say again what I have often said: will any hon. Member who is unaccountably leaving the Chamber, not wishing to hear the Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), please do so quickly and quietly, so that those of us who are all agog can hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say?

Corporate Boards (Diversity)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

Chuka Umunna: I thought I would start by setting in context the reason for initiating this debate. First of all, tomorrow the Labour peer Lord Davies of Abersoch—not just a peer but a leading businessman in our country—will be producing and publishing his final report on gender diversity on corporate boards. Secondly, as you know, Mr Speaker, I led for the Opposition on these issues for the past four years and maintain a very keen interest in them. Before entering this place, I practised as a lawyer advising companies large and small, and one of my big motivations for initiating this debate is that I often found, particularly when advising our large companies—attending board meetings, taking instructions from clients, going to a completion meeting for a transaction—that there were very few women in the room and I was almost always the only person of colour.
	I want to make one observation before turning to the progress that has been made. Very often in this House, debate is characterised by sometimes extreme tribalism, which requires your intervention, Mr Speaker. The Minister shakes her head.

Anna Soubry: I am just shocked.

Chuka Umunna: Our debates have been described as “slightly yah-boo”, but the issue of diversity has illustrated that when there is broad agreement across the parties, we can actually achieve great progress and effect change in our society. In the last Parliament we had a Liberal Democrat Business Secretary in a Conservative-led Government, commissioning a Labour peer to carry out a review and then produce a report into how we can improve the way in which our boardrooms in this country operate—what they look like—ensuring that they are more representative. What happened as a result of that approach? In 2010, women made up just 12.5% of FTSE 100 boards. In the FTSE 100 at that point there were 21 all-male boards. Later in 2010, Lord Davies was commissioned to do his work by Sir Vince Cable, the then Business Secretary. In 2011, Lord Davies reported, making a range of different recommendations, and perhaps the one that stood out publicly was the target to ensure that women make up 25% of FTSE 100 boards.
	The initial reaction of some businesses and business groups was not necessarily terribly encouraging. We all hear the merit argument: “Why pay attention to somebody’s background? Appoint on merit.” The problem with that argument, as ever, is that if boards have been appointing on merit, the reason that our boards do not look like modern Britain and do not have enough women on them is that there are not sufficient women who merit promotion to the board. That argument does not hold water. It did not hold water in 2010; it certainly does not hold water in 2015.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I congratulate him on all the marvellous work that he did in opposition on this subject. His comments on gender equality also apply to ethnic minority representation. Today I attended the funeral of a great British entrepreneur—Gulam Noon, who created a business from absolutely nothing. There are people of talent around now—people such as the late Lord Noon—who could easily serve as executive directors on the board of British Airways or others of that kind. It is not that we wait for legislation; this can be done now, if corporate Britain decides to act.

Chuka Umunna: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. Lord Noon was a trailblazer, and his passing is a great loss for our country. On behalf of Members in all parts of the House I extend our sympathy and condolences to his family. He was a big man and he made a huge difference.
	Effecting change so that we have more Lord Noons and more diversity in the boardroom has required leadership from business groups such as the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the women’s 30% Club. The last Business Secretary also undoubtedly forced change. One of the most important aspects of this debate is the Government ensuring that they keep on the table for business the prospect of more prescriptive action if a business-led approach does not achieve sufficient change. The result of what was done on gender is that in 2015 there are no all-male boards in the FTSE 100, and 26.1% of board members overall are women—a fantastic achievement.

Julian Knight: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a very important topic. He mentioned that there are no all-male boards in the FTSE 100, but there are 23 all-male boards in the FTSE 250. That is an important point, and I wonder whether he could reflect on the fact that it is not just about boards in the big companies; it is about how we encourage both gender and ethnic minority diversity in middle-sized companies and also in middle management.

Chuka Umunna: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we are talking about the pipeline. He pre-empts my point that, given that we have seen such fantastic progress, there is now a strong instinct to take our foot off the pedal. Yes, the glass ceiling for women is starting to show cracks, but we have yet to smash it. We now need a crusade to ensure that we increase the number of female executive directors. It is a disgrace that in 2015 there are so few women at CEO level in the FTSE 100 and beyond when there is such an abundance of talent out there. That should not detract from our enjoyment of the moment tomorrow when Lord Davies presents his final report and reflects on what has been achieved on gender.
	If gender diversity has increased, however, the appalling lack of ethnic diversity in UK boardrooms persists, and progress has gone into reverse in 2015. That is no way for our country to mark the 50th anniversary this year of the first Race Relations Act. The latest annual survey of 10,000 top business leaders by executive recruiter Green Park, which has done fantastic work in this area, shows that the number of visible ethnic minority CEOs is falling, and the number of all-white boards is increasing, at a time when 14% of our population is from a black or minority ethnic background. Today there are just four non-white CEOs in the FTSE 100, following Tidjane Thiam’s move from Prudential to Credit Suisse.

Michelle Donelan: I, too, commend the hon. Gentleman on the brilliant choice of topic for debate. Is there not a danger of examining the symptoms rather than the cause here, which could mean that we end up with the less competence on boards? Should we not be trying to inspire and encourage a range of people on to boards by targeting education and looking at the beginning of the process, which explains why these people are not succeeding in getting to that higher level?

Chuka Umunna: I am afraid that there are simply too many people out there with the talent and ability who are not being appointed. That is the reality of the situation in 2015.

David Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all that he is saying, and I congratulate him on his engagement, which was announced in the last few days.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not special pleading? If we look overseas to America, we see that they have made huge strides with the appointment of African-Americans and Latinos to boards. That increases the diversity of talent, and most pioneering companies understand that to be the case.

Chuka Umunna: I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend, and I thank him for his best wishes. On the point that he makes, he and I represent very similar constituencies, and we cannot carry on like this. When my young black constituents ask me what they should consider doing in the future, I want to be able to point to people who look like them in the boardrooms, to inspire them to think that they can do it too. In 2015 there are far too few people who I can point to and give as an example.

Dawn Butler: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this Adjournment debate. It is this very subject that led us to create the all-party parliamentary group on governance and inclusive leadership. Members on both sides of the House recognise how important diversity is in business and on boards, and most businesses recognise the business case for diversity. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Chuka Umunna: I could not agree more, and I very much welcome the establishment of that all-party parliamentary group. My hon. Friend mentioned the economic benefits. We are not harnessing the huge benefits that our diaspora communities in the UK can bring to the boardroom—their family connections to and cultural understanding of the emerging markets, as we seek to export more and tackle from a trade perspective a current account deficit which is the largest on record.
	In response to what I have said, I call on Ministers, first, to set a target for ethnic minority representation on FTSE 100 boards to be met by 2020, so that there are no all-white boards by 2020. That is a sensible target. The 2020 campaign led by Lenny Henry, Trevor Phillips and others has suggested that. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. Secondly, in 2013 the Companies Act 2006 was amended to require companies to include a breakdown of the number of female employees on boards, in senior management positions and in the company as a whole. We should do the same for ethnicity. If businesses do not know the problem in their workplace, they cannot do anything about it. Finally, Lord Davies has done a fine job on gender diversity. Let us now commission him to carry out a similar review on ethnicity. I praise the Government and the previous Government for their political will to make that happen on gender: get Lord Davies to carry out a similar review into ethnic diversity.

Lisa Cameron: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Does he agree that the issue in respect of individuals who have a disability also needs to be taken forward, and that it has not been addressed appropriately so far?

Chuka Umunna: I agree. As is often said in debates when we are considering equality issues, it is a not case of either/or; it is and. We need to look at all these aspects.
	Ultimately, if there is not sufficient progress in a reasonable time frame, Ministers must be clear that they will act. Both carrot and stick are necessary if we are to build that fairer, more equal Britain where all my constituents, regardless of their background, can aspire to achieve, to reach for the stars and lead British business.

Anna Soubry: I am always grateful to my team in the Department because they always write me a speech. Most of the speech that has been provided is not of much relevance because I am in listening mode on this issue. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), whom I congratulate not just on his engagement, but on having secured this debate, makes some extremely interesting and valid points, which I did not realise until he secured the debate. I am pleased to record in Hansard some of the things that have already occurred which are interesting and which are at least the building blocks for tackling what is undoubtedly a real problem, which he properly brings to this place. He properly calls on Government, in effect, to take the same attitude to people of different colour, ethnicity and background as we have taken in the past five years to women. That is what I believe the hon. Gentleman is saying. If he is not, he can tell me.
	The 2020 group is chaired by Sir John Parker. He is the chairperson—interestingly, it says “chairman” in my notes—of Anglo American plc. The aim of the group is to help to create the climate and conditions in which UK business leadership can take the maximum advantage of the cultural, religious and ethnic diversity available within the population. We know the figures: 98% of all FTSE 100 chairs are white; 96% of FTSE 100 chief executive officers are white; and 95% of the FTSE 100 chief financial officers are white. As the hon. Gentleman has said, that comes from the Green Park leadership campaign and work.
	As a result of the 2020 vision, the Prime Minister said that, in the next five years, we will increase the proportion of apprenticeships started by young people from black and minority ethnic communities by 20%; increase the number of BME students going to university by 20%; and work to ensure that 20,000 of start-up loans are awarded to BME applicants by 2020.
	That is good and laudable and it resonates with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), who is no longer in the Chamber.
	He and my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) made the point that we must ensure that people from all backgrounds go into business. The point made by the hon. Member for Streatham was that we cannot wait, because we know that people of ability are in businesses and are more than capable of reaching the upper echelons but are not getting there.
	There is therefore a problem. I do not know—I am asking the hon. Gentleman to help me—whether there is research on why more perfectly capable and able people who happen not to be white are not making the progress they clearly should make.

Chuka Umunna: To answer the Minister’s question, Green Park in the main has produced the research. That is one reason why I think it would be fantastic if the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills asked Lord Davies of Abersoch to do on this what he did on gender. He collated the research, and I am sure the Minister’s civil servants have given her his various reports, which he produces every six months. We need the same kind of evidence-building and research on the reasons why—they may not be purely discriminatory or anything like that—to find out what blockages are stopping such people getting to the top.

Anna Soubry: I absolutely understand that. Lots of people are doing all sorts of research. After the first Opposition day debate this afternoon, I went to an event in the Shard organised by a foundation called the Pink Shoe Club. It is doing a lot of in-depth work with women to see why, for example, women in small businesses are not having the successes that men have. It is complex. One reason is access to money. Another is that, frankly—I can say this as a woman—it would seem that not enough women have enough aspiration. It is not simply the case that there is still discrimination and bias—I am sure there is and there is no debate about that—but there are lots of other factors. Obviously, with the rise of women through the ranks, there will always that debate on the topic of children and how women fit their children in with that sort of career and advance. Any man can do it—the problem never seems to stop men having children and continuing their career. It is hugely complicated.

David Lammy: Does the Minister agree that chairmen and CEOs have to lead and say that the issue is important, and they have to mentor? In that sense, it is no different from politics.

Anna Soubry: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—he is now my right hon. Friend for the purposes of this debate. When I was a Defence Minister, one thing that really struck me was that the people at the very top of the three armed services undoubtedly got it. They understood that it was unacceptable that there were not enough women, gay people or people from ethnic minority backgrounds making their way up through the ranks in the same way that white, straight men were. After the people at the very top got it, we began to see the most astonishing successes. For example, our armed forces have done particularly well in getting rid of the awful discrimination against gay people. Some progress has been made for people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Frankly, we could do a lot more for women. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it has to come from the top, because that is where the leadership is.
	This probably sounds completely obvious to those of us who get it, but it is not about saying, “I want 50% of my board to be women, and I want more people with brown skin on my board, because that’s what we really should be doing.” It is about saying, “We’ve got to have the very best people on our board, so there should be no barriers to them getting there. If there are barriers, how can we be sure that we’re getting the best people?” It is not about saying, “We want more women and more people from ethnic minority backgrounds because that reflects society.” It is about saying, “We want the very best, and that means people with ability have to be able to get on.”

Maria Miller: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend, who is making a powerful case. She will no doubt be aware that for the past 16 years more than 50% of graduates coming out of Russell Group universities in this country are women, and that more women get first-class degrees from those leading universities than men, yet only 8% of executive directors in this country are women. She is making a powerful case for people to listen and act, but we are not seeing much action, so how will she change that in an acceptable time frame?

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She brings huge experience to this debate, given her role in government over the past five years. I think that we have made very good progress, and I think that it is accepted that there are now many more women sitting on FTSE 100 boards, but I accept that we are nowhere near where we should be. I take the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull that it is not just about the FTSE 100. Indeed, there is always a danger that we forget about all the other companies. However, the FTSE 100 is a symbol, so if we can get it right in the top 100 companies the message will drop all the way down to smaller business.

Dawn Butler: As you are making such good points, may I invite you to attend the all-party group and listen to the Powerlist Foundation and Green Park as we collate all the information and work out how we can fix the problem?

Mr Speaker: I would welcome that privilege, but I think that it will be that of the Minister.

Anna Soubry: I was just thinking that you would love to attend that, Mr Speaker. I would love to attend as well, so we will see whether that can be arranged.

Michelle Donelan: While assessing the solutions, does the Minister agree that quotas are demeaning and do not foster the necessary culture of diversity?

Anna Soubry: I absolutely agree. I do not like quotas or targets, but that does not mean that I do not like ambitions—there is an important subtlety in that word. That is why I had no difficulty with some of the great campaigns to get more women into this place or on to boards. I have no difficulty with a hard drive behind ambition, but I absolutely would not go down the route of having strict legal quotas.

Chuka Umunna: With regard to the point that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) made about quotas, we looked at that in the previous Parliament, after the European Commission came forward with proposals. I think that the general consensus in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills was not to rule them out completely for the future, but that they are not something people want to move forward with at the moment. We wanted business to lead the charge, and it has done that. I have a practical suggestion for the Minister. The Powerlist Foundation has been mentioned, and she will be aware of the existence of the list of the 100 most powerful black Britons that is produced every year. I suggest that she meet its representatives, because it would be a very valuable resource for her in finding out about research and getting advice on what to do next. I also ask that we change the narrative reporting rules to require large listed companies in the FTSE 100 to produce statistics on the situation in their business so that they know whether there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Anna Soubry: I do not want more regulation. The hon. Gentleman would expect me, as a BIS Minister, to say that. However, he is absolutely right. If people do not look at their own institution, business or whatever to make this analysis—in my chambers, for example, we would look at our stats and our figures—then how do they know when there is a problem and where it might be? It is necessary for businesses to look at this.
	The hon. Gentleman made some very powerful points. He had three asks. I hope he will forgive me if this sounds a bit wet, but I would like to not only take this away with me, but, most importantly, to meet him and the key players to look at it and advance it. The Secretary of State is from a particular background, and is no doubt the first person from that background in that role, so he will certainly have an interest in this, especially as he has a business background, as did his family.

Richard Fuller: In his speech at the Conservative party conference, the Prime Minister gave a very clear direction that he wanted change so that people could overcome issues about their names and so on. I am worried about who we can point to as examples for seven, eight, nine and 10-year-olds, and teenagers, in school in my constituency. That point was made by the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna). I am hearing very positive words from the Minister, but there has to be a bit more action. The hon. Gentleman said that there has been a mixture of carrot and stick. When the Minister has finished having her conversations and looking at the information, will she at least, short of quotas and regulation, look at what sticks can be used if progress is not made?

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend has known me for long enough to know that I do not shy away from things. I am more than happy to look at the kinds of sticks that can be put in place to encourage action now. We are not going to wait for those 10-year-olds to get up to these levels; we have to sort it out now. I know, as a woman, that when somebody has “made it” they can become an incredibly powerful force.

Chuka Umunna: As a role model.

Anna Soubry: Yes, as a role model. I am a huge fan of mentoring. I have seen the great work that mentors can do with women, and often people from difficult backgrounds, in inspiring them and giving them a helping hand along their journey. I am a huge fan of that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to get the right role models in place.
	I am sorry if this is not one of those speeches whereby I just trot out all the usual lines. However, I absolutely give an undertaking that I will speak to the Secretary of State about this debate and the very powerful speech that the hon. Gentleman made. He mentioned Vince Cable. The article in the Evening Standard was very good and very powerful.

Chuka Umunna: I very much welcome the Minister’s invitation to come to her Department to meet her and, I hope, the Secretary of State, and bring a group together to discuss how to move forward. I undertake to do that.

Anna Soubry: That is excellent. I undertake to see whether Lord Davies’s remit can be extended, now that he has done such great work, in the way that we want. I hope that this gives us a real basis now to do some really good, positive work.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Human Rights (Joint Committee): Nomination of Committee

That Fiona Bruce, Ms Karen Buck, Ms Harriet Harman, Jeremy Lefroy, Mark Pritchard and Amanda Solloway be members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 485, Noes 61.

Question accordingly agreed to.